I must admit that at first this phrase struck me as simple and childish, but now I am beginning to realize this description is really rather appropriate.

The expression itself can be traced back to the use of drummers in 18th-century warfare. These percussionists stood shoulder to shoulder with rows of frightened soldiers as they lined up and fired volley upon volley into each other, a mere stone's throw away. The soldiers just stood there in the open, waiting for their turn to collapse with a fatal gunshot or cannonball wound. All the while, they never doubted their orders and the drummers never ceased beating their drums.

To the untrained eye the drummers seem superfluous, almost silly, but to an 18th-century commander, they were invaluable. The vital role of the drumbeat was to keep the individual soldiers from thinking about the desperate fate they were marching toward. Through a steady and overpowering rhythm a commander could arrange for his troops to march into certain death, whereas otherwise they might question what they were being asked to sacrifice or worse yet, why.

Once again, from our elected officials, I am hearing a familiar drumbeat. A few months ago, when the media and the White House first mentioned that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, it was said to be between five and seven years away from its first bomb.

We citizens took notice, and then refocused on the economy and its Enron intrigues. A few weeks after that we were told Iraq was supposed to be one to three years away from a bomb, we took greater notice, but then got curious about the president and vice president's own economic scandals.

Now, we are told Iraq could have a bomb in two to four months, and the media will not change the subject. By my calculations Iraq's first bomb should be finished unusually close to the congressional elections. Funny, huh?

Yet this editorial is not a petition against a war with Iraq, it is a petition for the use of common sense, and what we are told is not common sense.

Yes, Iraq has used chemical weapons in the past, so has most of Europe. Sure it has sponsored terrorism, but so has America. The only difference is that when we gave money and weapons to Osama bin Laden in the early '80s he was a freedom fighter; if others do, he is a terrorist.

It is true Iraq has sought out nuclear weapons, and yes it has also violated U.N. resolutions, but it is by no means alone in any of these areas. According to these criteria for attacking a sovereign nation, half the world should be on our hit list, including top U.S. allies like Israel. With this in mind, Iraq's offenses are really no different than a multitude of other nations, what reasons are we going to give for only destroying them?

Or should this be seen as the first round of "America versus the World"? If left unhindered, this "war on terror" will lead us to promote exactly what it is we are trying to stop, unchecked aggression.

As a bonus, we might also reveal to the third world a little foreign policy secret ¯ if a nation doesn't want to be invaded whenever the United States gets upset, they better acquire some nuclear weapons of their own.

In all of its impressive history the United States has never invaded a sovereign nation without being attacked first ¯ including Vietnam, vis-à-vis the "Gulf of Tonkin" scam ¯ why should we discard all our international credibility over what amounts to a poorly supported allegation?

Inspections must be the first and most desirable outcome of this situation, even a murderer isn't executed until after the trial.

Patriotism has been used to commit more atrocities than almost any other force on earth, and assuming that U.S. foreign policy is always righteous is both a crime against intellect and history. Might rarely means right.

I hope that we realize we are a world superpower out of good fortune and not because we are somehow morally superior. Fifty years at the top is a drop in the ocean compared to some of our empire predecessors, and it should bring with it an immense responsibility to act with humility and caution, not recklessness and bravado.

Our days at the top of the global food chain are numbered ¯ particularly if we continue on this aggressive path ¯ the only uncertainty is how we will be remembered. The influence of an informed conscience should never be replaced by the overwhelming rhythm of a patriotic drum.