WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE WAR?

Although I endorse President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, I'm concerned about what's going to happen after we win the war.

To me, winning the war means finding and eliminating Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (if any) and removing the brutal dictator from power. But that's only the beginning.

As a former diplomat, I agree with Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell when they conclude that United Nations diplomacy has failed. Once France announced that it would veto any new UN Security Council resolution, that game was over.

Nevertheless, I know that American diplomats will be called upon to play a prominent role in the democratization and reconstruction of Iraq, and that's a tall and very expensive order.

Now that the bombs have started falling, it's time for Americans of all political persuasions to put their differences aside and rally around the flag, supporting our troops and giving them everything they need to prevail in the war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It's important to note that this is a war against a megalomaniacal dictator and his henchmen, and not against Islam or the long-suffering people of Iraq.

While our forces will make every effort to minimize civilian casualties, Saddam will be willing to sacrifice as many of his own people as necessary so as to remain in power, as he did during the Gulf War.

Recent public opinion polls show the American people support the war for the liberation of Iraq by a margin of 65 to 35 percent; however, that dissenting minority -- especially the Hollywood anti-war crowd -- is making a lot of noise and generating a disproportionate amount of media attention. One of the leading pacifists is actor Martin Sheen, who doesn't seem to realize that he's not really the president; he only plays one on television (but I defend his First Amendment right to speak out).

Now let's review the opposing points of view on the war against Iraq's longtime dictator. In support of President Bush and the majority viewpoint, editors of the conservative Weekly Standard assert that "the war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about Saddam's regime."

On the other hand, editorial writers for the liberal New York Times think that "the war crowns a period of terrible diplomatic failure, Washington's worst in at least a generation. The Bush administration now presides over unprecedented military might. What it risks squandering is not America's power, but an essential part of its glory." Well, maybe, but I'd rather destroy the weapons of mass destruction first and ask the philosophical questions later.

As I said at the outset, the reconstruction of Iraq will be an enormous task for American military personnel and diplomats. It will make the reconstruction of Afghanistan look like child's play, and will require the full cooperation of the United Nations, which is in disarray after the ugly U.S.-France showdown over the Security Council resolution (1441) that required Saddam to disarm.

As veteran Washington Post foreign affairs analyst Jim Hoagland wrote last week, "The Bush team must be positioned to turn war gains into a clear, achievable and effective diplomatic campaign, as Sadat did in 1973 and as George H.W. Bush did in 1991. (President) Bush's indirect endorsement ... of a political charter of liberties for Arab nations being pushed by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah was a first step in that direction."

According to Jeffrey Bell of the Weekly Standard, our diplomatic campaign should be designed to help resolve political and societal tensions in Islamic countries -- like Indonesia and Turkey -- with governments friendly to Washington.

"Post-invasion Iraq will put the issue on our plate in an unavoidable way," he wrote. "In a nutshell, the argument is between (military) occupiers and (civilian) democratizers.... The introduction of a democracy that respects free speech and freedom of religion will begin the process of separating religion from politics in Islamic culture," further polarizing the forces of radical Islam in the Middle East and increasing the threat of terrorism.

This, in turn, will require an effective "public diplomacy" campaign to explain our policies and actions to the volatile Muslim world. To date, this campaign has failed under the direction of former Madison Avenue advertising maven Charlotte Beers, who favored paid advertising over traditional public diplomacy.

Beers, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, resigned earlier this month for "health reasons," but her detractors (including me) believe that she never really understood how to effectively communicate our ideas to foreign audiences.

Writing in the conservative National Review, former Radio Liberty researcher Ariel Cohen said the post-Iraq War public diplomacy campaign will be a battle against "vicious militants who are trying to hijack Islam and topple moderate governments throughout the Islamic world. Ideas have consequences and this battle must be joined through words, symbols and pictures, not just bullets and missiles."

That's well worth remembering as we fight our war against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime.

Guy W. Farmer, a semi-retired journalist and former U.S. diplomat, resides in Carson City.