So we’re wringing our hands about whether to go to war in Iraq.

I have to admit, there are plenty of reasons not to. I can think of four main ones.

• Our allies are holding back.
• It’ll enrage Muslim populations.
• Iraq’s own people want us to butt out.
• It could be a quagmire.

So I’m unsure. But I’m recalling a similar debate a bit more than a year ago. Same question, different place: Should we invade Afghanistan?

Remember?

Despite Sept. 11, a lot of people were against it, for the same reasons people now oppose war in Iraq.

• Allies weren’t all with us.
• Critics feared inflaming Muslims.
• Afghans were all America-hating Taliban.
• And analysts warned of a quagmire.

Around that time, I was on a panel about it at Brown University. Ninety percent of the crowd felt attacking Afghanistan was an outrage. Our quarrel was with one man there — Osama bin Laden — so why attack a whole country? It would be typically belligerent foreign policy.

Other critics said an invasion would increase anti-America hatred around the world at a time when Muslims were already burning our flag. And historically, Afghanistan had been a trap for invading armies. The Russians were mired there for years. It would be another Vietnam, with Americans cut apart not in the jungle, but the mountains.

But we went in.

And surprise — we promptly prevailed.

Not only did we destroy terrorist camps, but the Taliban quickly collapsed.

Most startling, the “extremist” Afghan population saw us as liberators. Turns out they had hated being under the thumb of a harsh regime that banned music and executed women caught having love affairs. In short, we infidels walked into the most anti-American of all hornets’ nests, and found ourselves embraced.

Which brings us to Iraq.

Would the same thing happen? Would Iraqis embrace us if Saddam were driven from power?

Similar things have happened in other dictatorships. In 1989, one after the other, anti-American communist governments collapsed throughout Eastern Europe. Why? Because the people had longed for democracy and free markets. But they hadn’t dared say so.

Might there not be similar secret feelings among Iraqis? A longing for the U.S. to liberate them?

But even if that were true, what about other warnings of critics. Couldn’t Iraq prove a quagmire?

Many warned that would happen in 1991. Remember Saddam’s Republican guard? They were going to stop us. Instead, they collapsed. Some are now saying it’ll be tougher today. It’s possible. But plenty said it would be tough back then.

I suppose it looks like I’m about to end this column by saying it’s clear we should invade Iraq.

But I’m not quite there yet.

America seldom invades without provocation. We went into Iraq in ’91 because Saddam had pillaged Kuwait. We struck Afghanistan in 2001 because of Sept. 11.

I’m still thinking we need more of a reason than we now have to go into Iraq today. So no, I’m not ready to say we should go.

But I am saying we shouldn’t be distracted by questionable concerns.

Such as hesitant allies, Muslim protests, fear of a quagmire or thoughts that Iraqis adore Saddam.

The real questions are twofold:

Is Saddam backing terror?

Is he stockpiling mass-destruction weapons?

The debate should focus on that.

Mark Patinkin is a columnist for the Providence Journal. His e-mail address is mpatinkin@projo.com.