For the past two months, President Bush has been stepping up harsh rhetoric towards Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Bush accuses Hussein of developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) such as chemical nerve gas and highly dangerous nuclear bombs. Hussein may have used some WMD on his own people before, and Bush says that the dictator won't hesitate to use them again.

Maybe the next attack will come against Israel or Jordan, our allies in the Middle East. Hussein may even give WMD to terrorists who would use them against Europe and the United States. That is a big threat to U.S. and global security, and most people agree that the Iraqi president shouldn't remain in power.

What reasons would the Bush administration have for ultimately deciding for or against military action? Here are a few that I feel are important:

Relative weakness of the Iraqi military. Because of the economic embargoes imposed on Iraq by both the United States and the United Nations after the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq has had difficulty purchasing weapons and military equipment. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper, the Iraqi army, at 350,000 troops, is one-third the size it was in 1991. Iraq's ability to quickly move its soldiers around the country is compromised by a poor logistical network. Also, morale among the soldiers is low, and there have been many desertions in the last few years.

Opposition to U.S. military action from many Arab and European allies. Saudi Arabia, a key supplier of bases and airspace during the Gulf War, signaled its unwillingness to provide such support if America invades Iraq. Many European leaders, like German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, have voiced unease and opposition. If we invade, America would want these nations' troops on board with us as they were in 1991.

Divisions inside and among the Iraqi opposition groups. There are about six major Iraqi groups that oppose Hussein's regime. Some represent the Shiite Muslims in southern Iraqi, some the Sunni Muslim Arabs of the greater Baghdad area, and others the Kurds of northern Iraq. With their differing bases of support, they have different visions of the political landscape in post-Hussein Iraq.

However, at a summit hosted by the American government this summer, all the groups agreed to the basic ideal of a unified, democratic Iraq. The are reported to have minimal purely military forces. So as they are now, they cannot play the role that the opposition Northern Alliance played in the overthrow of the Afghan Taliban, according to American experts.

Prospect of urban warfare and/or launching of WMD. These are the two aces that Hussein has up his sleeve, so to speak. His troops were easily defeated in the open desert during the Gulf War when their objective was to gain and hold territory. But now that their task is to defend his regime, high-casualty urban warfare in the streets of Baghdad is an option he may pursue. Are the American people ready for many more military deaths than in Afghanistan?

I believe that our government has restricted its options for removing Hussein solely to a U.S. military campaign in Iraq, even though officials have declared that President Bush has not made up his mind on a course of action yet. While there is still time for speculation, I think that the opposition groups, both within Iraq and in exile, have not been given enough credit. They are the ones who know the Iraqi people the best, at least the segments that they represent.

If the United States simply increased its support of these groups, both financial and otherwise, and encouraged even more unification among them, we could follow the model of the Afghan war. The effort to oust Hussein would have much more credibility among our European and Arab allies, and best of all, the United States would achieve its "stated goal" of regime change without much loss of American life.