It’s no secret the United States is the most powerful country on earth, and because we hold the title of “World Superpower,” we usually get our way when it comes to world affairs.

And so it goes with the American threat of war on Iraq. Even though we’re standing with only Britain and Israel firmly at our sides, the Bush administration is getting ready to bomb the bejesus out of Baghdad and Saddam Hussein – U.N. resolution or not.

When the topic of going to war with Iraq emerged months ago, Bush was ready to go it alone, following a “forward-leaning” policy favored by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, who believe America should be militarily aggressive and take risks, i.e. show the bad guys that the United States is one tough cookie.

In contrast, Secretary of State Colin Powell (the usual odd duck in the Bush Administration) believes we should solve the problem diplomatically with international support behind the attacks – and most of the world agrees with him.

But what the international community thinks about attacking Iraq doesn’t really matter to the Bush administration. Even if the United Nations refuses to support an attack, Bush is ready to invade and already has a war plan — prepared by Gen. Tommy Franks who would oversee any attack — sitting on his desk.

And so, it looks like we’re going to attack Iraq against the will of other countries, and I have to ask myself, “Why now?” Eleven years have passed since the Gulf War ended, 11 more years Saddam Hussein — that builder of “weapons of mass destruction” — has continued to hold power.

Perhaps the Iraq situation is a type of “wag the dog” war to keep American minds off of the fact that it’s been more than a year since Sept. 11 and no one has a clue whether or not Osama bin Laden is dead or alive. Maybe it’s to keeps us distracted from the fact it’s been more than a year and we still have no idea who sent anthrax around the country. Or maybe it’s to keep George W. Bush’s approval ratings up because everyone gets behind the President when he declares war on another country.

But let’s say this threatened war isn’t just a timely distraction, and suppose Hussein is disarmed and ousted, what will America do then? Given America’s complicated history with Iraq, from our military support for them against Iran during the Reagan years to Clinton’s half-hearted attempts to oust Saddam, politicos have wondered often who will succeed Saddam. Will it be Saddam Jr. or a pro-American leader who will give us a break on oil?

With our war on terror and trying to keep American-protected Afghan President Hamid Karzai from getting assassinated (like the attempt made while Bush was debating the Iraq situation), I think we might have a few too many dishes on our foreign relations plate.

Regardless, there’s sure to be a backlash against us Yankees for our war on Iraq, whether it’s because of our unilateral decision to strike or because of our involvement in a succeeding government (most likely both).

Eh, maybe we could just send Bono to talk to Saddam – he’s not just the savior of rock n roll you know, he could also save the world.