There exists a strange belief among some war advocates -- only some, to be fair -- that those against the war feel that way simply because they're delusional idealists. Because, in a word, they're hippies. In contrast, those who support the war are "patriots." Somehow, this is why we should invade Iraq. It's the patriotic thing to do.

While belching such "patriotic" platitudes, these war advocates should be mindful of how similar they sound to the "idealists" they describe. Rather than assert simply that Bush is right, they should logically support why Bush is right. So far as I've seen, Bush hasn't made a qualified argument yet.

Bush has essentially made two cases for war:

1) Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) must be destroyed.

2) Invading Iraq is a response to Sept. 11. While neither of these cases hold water, the former sounds more credible and scarier. But it's wrong.

Claiming Iraq's WMDs must be destroyed by force requires the following assumptions: Iraq has such weapons; inspectors were and are ineffective; Iraq is to blame for the weapons inspectors' failure; and invading Iraq will solve the problem. None of these assumptions are supported.

According to United Nations inspectors, Iraq's WMD program could be verified at 90 percent to 95 percent destroyed by the time they left in 1998. This was not because weapons inspectors simply took Iraq's word at face value. Weapons inspections, naturally, weren't easy. But just because they were difficult doesn't mean that they were unsuccessful.

The very knowledge that weapons inspections were met with resistance comes from the report of the weapons inspectors themselves. But if you listen to the whole story, the same people say they accordingly took various measures to ensure that such resistance was overcome.

Rather than use reactionary techniques, through aggressive persistence inspectors forced Iraq to begrudgingly account for evidence brought against it. By this means, inspectors stated their ability to account for nearly all of Iraq's possible WMDs.

Why, however, were such methods effective when we know that Iraq would rather bar inspectors altogether? The answer is that Iraq saw the inspections as a deterrent to military force against it. The inspectors were, supposedly, there to assure Iraq's disarmament and nothing more. As long as this understanding was maintained, Iraq had incentive to allow inspectors to ensure its own survival, no matter how much Saddam hated it.

The myth that Iraq ended the weapons inspections is misleading. In December 1998, Deputy U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh picked up his phone and ordered the removal of all weapons inspectors from Iraq, immediately. We did it, not Iraq. The United States then immediately and unilaterally bombed Iraq, using intelligence gathered by U.N. weapons inspectors.

Why doesn't Iraq want inspectors now? It should be obvious: Iraq's incentive for doing so was eliminated in 1998, as was the credibility of the inspectors conducting inspections and not espionage. This dilemma is reason for reviving a credible inspections program, not going to war.

What would be a case for war, then? Hawks in office say we must go to war because Iraq presents a threat to America. This threat exists, they tell us, because we know that since 1998, Iraq has quietly resurrected its WMD program, is arming itself with nuclear weapons and will strike us directly or indirectly.

But for the administration to state that it knows these things implies certainty. If the administration is so certain of these things, please do share. Not only would it be in our interests, it would be in the administration's, for doing so would prove the necessity of war. Bush, however, hasn't provided this evidence. This absence is disturbingly conspicuous.

In any conflict, peace and diplomacy should be the default policies, while war is the last resort. It shouldn't be our duty to prove that peace is preferable, but rather the administration's duty to prove that war is unavoidable. Quite frankly, I don't think Bush cares.

Moreover, saying Saddam has WMDs that he's willing to use is just plain silly. If he does, why hasn't Saddam used WMDs since the 1980s? Because, obviously, Saddam is aware of the consequences. Saddam is a tyrant, true, but he is also a survivalist. Saddam knows that he's finished if he lashes out with such weapons. But if we invade, and Saddam already knows he's finished, it's hard not to imagine a change in behavior. These are the actions of a deterrable enemy.

In a recent report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Anthony Cordesman -- arguably America's foremost Middle East policy wonk -- Cordesman points out: "The threat we face from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is not new in character. Not only did we face this threat in 1990, but we have faced a similar threat for more than two decades in North Korea and did so long before the end of the Cold War."

Why are things so different in Iraq from North Korea, where the United States maintains a policy of deterrence and engagement? One major difference lies in geographical context. While North Korea is surrounded by allies, which the United States has an interest in protecting, Iraq is surrounded by states such as Iran, which Bush is hostile to. Considering this difference, the implications of why we would invade the Middle East and not North Korea are worrisome.

Granted, worrying about such large-scale intentions is nothing more than speculation. But in the absence of a convincing argument for war, what else is there?