President Bush faces extremely difficult and delicate decisions on whether to be attacked or attack first.

It’s difficult for the average American citizen to fully assess the threat being posed by Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein.

We know he is a cruel dictator with a mindset that seems not unlike Adolf Hitler’s. He is focusing considerable energy on amassing highly destructive weapons and seems willing to use any weapon at his disposal against his enemies, and the United States obviously tops that list.

The fact that Saddam is a threat to the United States seems fairly clear, but what action the United States should take against the Iraqi leader isn’t as apparent. President Bush and his advisers are relying heavily on intelligence reports that may or may not be entirely accurate, and they appear to be plotting a course that protects both America’s security and its relationship with its allies around the world.

It means something to Kansans to hear both of their U.S. senators say, as they have in the past week, that the time isn’t right for a war against Iraq. Sen. Pat Roberts acknowledged that the president would have no choice but to take action if he believed Saddam posed an immediate threat to the U.S. But Roberts, who as a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees would be in a position to know something about the situation, said he didn’t believe that threat existed now.

Sen. Sam Brownback made a stronger statement Tuesday in Lawrence, saying he favored plans to support dissident groups within Iraq that eventually could overthrow Saddam. Brownback is a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

The statements by the two senators illustrate some of the president’s dilemma in dealing with Congress. Although Bush and his advisers have been making increasingly hawkish statements about Iraq, there seems to be considerable sentiment, even among Republican conservatives, that Bush should not enter into a significant armed conflict against Iraq without the support of Congress. Is the U.S. public willing to wait until Saddam launches an attack before we take action?

According to the U.S. Constitution, only Congress can declare war on behalf of the United States. Many presidents have gotten around that requirement, but sidestepping such a declaration against Iraq has drawbacks. Unlike other recent engagements that were won quickly and with minimal casualties, an effort to contain or remove Saddam Hussein is likely to require a sizable commitment from the United States.

Americans need to be convinced that the cause of bringing Saddam down is worth some sacrifice both in terms of dollars and American lives. Given the public’s aversion to Uncle Sam getting involved in a way, it probably will be extremely difficult to convince the general public that war is justified.

Support should begin in the U.S. Congress. These elected officials are privy to far more information than is available to the general public and, therefore, are in a far better position to assess the risk posed by Saddam. If they are convinced that it is in the best interests of the United States and the world to launch what could be a prolonged offensive against Saddam, the American public will be likely to follow their lead.

Many private citizens, most of whom are poorly informed on the matter, question whether this is the time for an attack on Saddam. Most American allies are shying away from involvement, and many members of Congress are expressing reservations. In spite of the threat Saddam poses, the United States can’t be foolhardy. An ill-timed attack could have serious consequences as well as compromising America’s standing among some nations around the world.

Now may not be the time, but all evidence is that the time for action is approaching. Saddam Hussein should rest assured that when Congress and the American people decide the time is right, this country and its allies will be a formidable foe.