With the Bush administration, you can be sure of one thing: Acting comes first and explanations come later (if ever).

Such is the case with President Bush’s continued campaign of rattling sabers at Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. According to the New York Times, the “final estimates” for a ground invasion of Iraq place the number of U.S. troops from 70,000 to 250,000, with the staging of such an event to occur early next year.

Lacking (once again) in the Bush plan is any clear or convincing explanation to the American public why a third-rate, emasculated dictator is still worth focusing our military attention on.

Rather, it has been the unyielding pronouncement of the “Bush Doctrine” that all terrorists, tyrants and despots must be sought out and disposed of by the might of the U.S. military muscle. Further lacking is how President Bush intends to carry out such a campaign over the clear objections of Iraq’s neighbors.

An administration official has an easy answer for this, of course: “It has been the consistent drumbeat from our friends in the region that if we are serious, they will be with us.”

Yet even these supposedly “U.S.-friendly” nations in the region are outright hostile to the idea of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Saudi officials are reluctant to give the United States permission to use Saudi airspace for launching strikes in Iraq. Even Kuwait remains non-committal, having gone so far as to sign a declaration that an attack on Iraq would constitute an attack on all Arab states, in exchange for Iraqi recognition of its statehood.

Oddly enough, the most active member of Bush’s “Axis of Evil,” Iran, who a few months ago was caught red-handed shipping everything from C4 explosives to Katyusha rockets to terrorists in Palestine, has barely been a blip on the radar in Bush’s projections. Even though there may be evidence that Iran helped harbor fleeing al-Qaida forces by allowing them

to escape through its border and regroup, Iran seems to be of little concern to the Bush administration right now.

Or, let’s look at Saudi Arabia, where most of al-Qaida’s funding actually came from. Strangely enough, there’s little talk of hunting down “those who deal with terrorists” in Ramallah.

While we’re on the topic of terrorists and despots, what of the noncommittal, self-appointed “president” of Pakistan, who has yet to demonstrate any resolve toward tracking down al-Qaida operatives (including bin Laden, who was recently shown to be alive and well) who may have escaped into Pakistan?

Meanwhile, Palestinian suicide bombers are still busy blowing up Israeli civilians and Israeli Defense Force tanks are still busy rolling through Palestinian refugee camps. All in all, Iraq seems pretty quiet right now.

The larger question at hand in all of this of course is, “Why Iraq, why now?” Of all the troublemakers in the region, Iraq has been perhaps the most docile as of late, serving only to give muted grumbling about cutting off oil shipments to the United States (which unsurprisingly has had little effect upon actual gas prices).

If the concern of the United States is one of peace and stability in the region, Iraq is hardly the place to start.

Furthermore, it is unclear how deposing Hussein serves to further U.S. interests. If the goal is to install an America-friendly regime, perhaps a quick review of our current project in Afghanistan is in order. Right now, warlords are fighting over the acting capital of the new Afghan state. Is this the type of “peace and security” Bush hopes to bring to Iraq? Hardly an improvement.

If the concern is over Iraq’s development of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, why then has the United States embraced the Pakistani regime (which prior to the “War on Terror” was an outcast for flexing its own nuclear muscle)? Why has the United States consistently refrained from chastising Russia and China for the proliferation of their own nuclear arsenals while preparing for the outright overthrow of Iraq?

And if it’s human rights that the United States is so gravely concerned about, what of Cuba, China and about half of the Middle East? What makes Iraq such a special target?

One is left only to speculate that Bush the Younger is obsessed with finishing the job his father failed to do.

The United States military, however, is not the tool to act out standing grudges.

Steve Skutnik is a senior in physics from Palm Harbor, Fla.