With war in Iraq all but inevitable, yet another protest column from theleft seems a useless gesture. The national debate ended last year whenCongress gave the Bush administration full authorization to use force.

Thegrim reality is that the ensuing discussions both in the United Nationsand the Bush administration amount to little more than lip service.

But let me get two points off my chest: First, no educated guesser in theBush clan has the slightest idea what will happen if ground troops enterthe streets of Baghdad. Reporters are ready and waiting to bring home images of American troops inbrutal combat. The reality of this war will be quite a bit harder toconceal than the last Gulf conflict, which took place mostly in thedesert.

Though hawks boast a majority of public opinion, we run the risk of seeinghow true Bush’s words ring in the face of real sacrifice. My guess: theAmerican people won’t tolerate it (see Vietnam).

Second, I hope someone in Bush’s new economic team is smart enough toexplain to the boss one key point that separates this Gulf War from thelast: death and destruction aren’t free. In fact, White House economistLawrence Lindsay put the price tag at as high as $200 billion.

Ten years ago, we split the war bill. In 1991 Saudi Arabia and othercountries funded the vast majority of the war effort to expel the Iraqiarmy from Kuwait. This time around, those governments can barely voice awhisper of support without fear of getting lynched by their citizenry.

And to make matters worse, the U.S. piggy bank is running on empty, withdeficits soaring and no economic recovery in sight.

So who will be leftpicking up the tab?

Most likely you will, based on typical Bush spendingpatterns.

To pay for the current military buildup, Bush and his accomplices inCongress have quietly been cutting back federal funds for road and freewayinfrastructure, health insurance subsidies and unemployment payments, toname a few. The cost of war will force these cutbacks even deeper. And unfortunately,Democrats in Congress, with few exceptions, have been unable or unwillingto mount an effective opposition to social spending cuts or the war.

Yet, in the face of a near conspiratorial neglect of history in the press,one need only look to the beginning of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf tosee how we got here:

* 1953: The CIA overthrows Iran’s only democratic leader in its history,Mohammed Mossadeq, because his government on the grounds that his government is communist. This happened not long after he nationalized Iran’s British controlled oilon the wild hope of using its considerable profit for Iranians. The CIA installed the bloodthirsty Reza Shah in his place, beginning along reign of American-sponsored terror. We now had our ally in theoil-rich gulf region.

* 1979: Fed up with the Shah, Iran revolted, leaving the cleric AyatollahKhomaini on the top of the heap. Goodbye brutal anti-Communist regime,hello brutal anti-American fundamentalists! But what to do about ournoticeable lack of an ally?

* 1980s: Enter America’s new marriage of convenience in the Gulf: SaddamHussein. And by all accounts, this was one expensive honeymoon, ranging frombillions of dollars in loans and subsidies right up to the Gulf War,weapons of mass destruction technology and a green light for Hussein’sinvasions against Iran and Kuwait.

Such support clearly enhanced the power of the vile dictator we facetoday, and as we see, violent solutions in the region have consequences.

Perhaps the most heinous connection of all is the consistent willingnessof this administration and those before it to exchange blood for politicalleverage in this oil rich region.

Sooner or later casualties or economic unrest will lead a fickle public tostart demanding answers on Middle East policy. Republicans had better cross their fingers and hope they’re not the onesleft holding the bag.