Saddam Hussein should be quite unhappy that the Bush White House has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a college preferential-admissions program for minorities.

That’s not because Saddam is a strong supporter of U.S.-style affirmative action. Actually, he probably doesn’t have a clue what the term means because, in Iraq, affirmative action means acting quickly to please him or to face death.

However, he should be concerned because the president’s intervention could be a clear signal about Saddam’s future.

Bush didn’t have to get involved. In fact, his intervention is largely symbolic, because the court will do as it pleases when it decides the University of Michigan case this spring. But his decision to take a firm stand against racial preferences for minorities in college admissions is additional evidence that his presidency resembles Ronald Reagan’s more than that of his own father’s.

Forced to choose between his belief that racial discrimination is wrong, even against whites and Asian-Americans, and the politically expedient choice of ducking the divisive issue, Bush took the more difficult path.

Now, this is not to imply that filing a court brief is nearly as momentous as going to war. But it does show a president less predisposed to avoid confrontation and make enemies than was his own father. Bush Sr.’s lack of a fixed ideological compass as president made him squeamish about taking a strong stand, both on quotas and getting rid of Saddam. It’s also difficult to imagine that, had Reagan been president in 1991, he would have called off the Persian Gulf War before Saddam was killed, captured or run out of town.

Bush’s father, you surely remember, caved to those who felt it was somehow unsporting to press on with the war when it was clearly over, without demanding Saddam’s removal (either from office or the planet) as a condition for peace.

What the Michigan case shows is that this President Bush doesn’t mind taking the heat. By weighing in, he surely will incite the “Republicans don’t like black people” crowd with the accompanying controversy and potential domestic political consequences. Especially after the Trent Lott episode, Bush could easily have ducked the issue, rather than file “a friend of the court” brief that reverses the government’s pro-racial preferences position set by Bill Clinton.

This Bush, compared with both his presidential father and Clinton, has a firmer ideological footing and couldn’t care less about how the news media portray his decision. And although Bush likes to get along, he doesn’t hesitate to tell those with other views to take a hike.

Bush hasn’t gone out of his way to pick a fight and has been quite adept at the art of the political deal. Remember, he persuaded enough Democrats to go along with his 2001 tax-cut bill to make it law, and there are few who think he won’t get much of what he wants in the money arena this year also.

In foreign affairs, too, he hasn’t been the megalomaniac caricature that many overseas and some Democrats at home claim. Last summer, when there were fears he would plunge straight ahead into a war with Iraq, he agreed to wait until U.N. inspectors could take a look.

That doesn’t mean, however, that Bush will give up his effort to depose Saddam if the inspectors don’t find the Iraqi leader himself in a lab mixing up a batch of black plague. And that’s exactly the point.

Whether you liked Reagan or hated him, everyone understood that he meant what he said and said what he meant. When forced to act — even in the face of controversy, such as challenging the Soviets to match the U.S. military buildup or settle the Cold War — he followed his gut instinct.

The same is true about this president and racial preferences. What a difference from his father, who in 1991 largely ducked the issue for fear that some black leaders and white liberals would brand him a racist. If Saddam could understand the dynamics that led this Bush to ask that the Supreme Court ban such preferences, the Iraqi dictator would get a clear signal that he should get out of Baghdad.

Bush has been clear that he considers Saddam a menace. Whether leading a multinational effort or just going alone with the British, Bush is unlikely to change his mind — no matter what others say or think.

Barring Saddam’s voluntary departure, regardless of what the U.N. inspectors say, the smart money in Vegas is on a U.S. attack by spring. The bookies know that this president may be a Bush by birth, but luckily in this case, genetics does not appear likely to determine policy.