Now," he said, "the end . . . now nothing but wrath and weeping!"

-- Dr. Matthew O'Connor in Djuna Barnes' "Nightwood"

As our troops return from the Persian Gulf, they clearly deserve our thanks and honor. They have done a dirty job for all of us -- protecting our (cheap) oil supply. Anyone who, in the last six months, contemplated their own possible participation in combat should respect the courage of our soldiers. They should be welcomed as the heroes they are.

By all means hug a soldier. Let them into ballgames free, loan them money, buy them drinks, fill their cars with gasoline (Yes! especially this). But do not respond to troop homecomings as if our armed forces were returning gold-medal Olympians. We can honor our troops for their courage and sacrifice without resorting to loud, gaudy nationalism, incessant flag-waving and chants of "U.S.A., U.S.A."

And we can honor our troops while at the same time criticizing our government and examining the nation's soul in the wake of six weeks of extreme violence. (This works both ways. Dissenters can criticize the war and Bush while still displaying flags and yellow ribbons.)

From the beginning of the Persian Gulf War, Americans have perceived the conflict primarily in terms of two previous wars, World War II and Vietnam, especially in supporting American troops in the field.

But the events of 1991 are different from the events of 1945 or 1972, and the public's reaction to victory in the gulf, a victory in which America was awash in wrath but spared much weeping, must be different as well. Americans must honor the troops and at the same time avoid overwheening pride and retain a critical eye when analyzing the events of the last six months.

This balance can be struck only by separating appreciation for our troops from political analysis of the war and events associated with it. When political support for the Vietnam War began to wane, American troops unjustly became targets of some Americans' political frustrations. A generation earlier, the Allied victory in World War II accompanied equally popular politics.

From the start of the Persian Gulf War, Americans have been determined to perceive the conflict through a World War II paradigm. While this has resulted in enthusiastic support for our troops, it has also encouraged the public to accept uncritically the Bush administration's actions. But Americans must refrain from transferring their joy, pride, relief and righteousness from the battlefield to politics.

Here, briefly, are a number of issues that Americans must consider when celebrating victory.

How many Iraqi civilians did our troops kill? Before supporting the war, Americans need to know how many innocent Iraqis died from American air attacks. They also need to see dead bodies on the television so that the human cost of the war is clear, because American news censors have managed to eliminate the human factor from the war coverage. For example, The New York Times and National Public Radio have reported Iraqi atrocities against animals in the Kuwaiti zoo. Meanwhile, Americans remain uninformed about civilian deaths.

One thing is clear. The Iraqi military proved to be a less formidable force than the Pentagon had billed it to be before Jan. 6. Given this, was it necessary to completely destroy Baghdad's infrastructure before engaging the Iraqi army? One reason given for abandoning the blockade of Iraq was that it would harm civilians long before it would harm Hussein's army. But once the war began, the United States attacked cities before concentrating on the army. This city of four million now has no electricity, running water or sewage. In this week's New Republic, Michael Kinsley recalls the Iraqi troops' dumping Kuwaiti babies from incubators and wonders how many incubators are now functioning in Baghdad.

How chummy do we plan on being with Syria? Really, the only difference between Syrian President Hafez Assad and Saddam Hussein is that Saddam is a marauding, fatigue-clad blunderer, lacking in patience and subtly. Assad is a ruthless and brilliant politician. Whereas Hussein stormed into Kuwait, provoking an American response, Assad used the Gulf War as a cover for his de facto annexation of Lebanon, a project he has patiently pursued for over 15 years.

According to Amnesty International, Assad considers torture a routine political tool. Syria is also a chief exporter of state sponsored terrorism; terrorists under Assad's patronage are, among other things, suspected of having destroyed that Pan American airliner over Scotland in 1989. Bush is extremely cynical when he denounces human rights abuses in Iraq and then exchanges smiles and promises with the butcher of Hama.

What about them oil wells? The earth is on fire. And could keep burning for over two years, perhaps burning as much as 15 percent of Kuwait's oil reserves. What effect will this have on local and global climates? As long as these fires rage, there is little reason to feel good about what has happened in the gulf.

Yes, the nation must welcome its troops home. But it must also remember that there are reasons for weeping and new targets for our wrath.