NEWTON'S LAW: IT'S TRUE: IRAQ ISN'T VIETNAM, SO LET US TELL THE POLITICIANS

The game is "Jeopardy" (how fitting) and the category is geography. This is according to the home version found at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

A card flips up to reveal the answer: "Iraq."

The correct question: "What is not Vietnam?"

Please regard this not as a matter of geographical illiteracy but of political immediacy. On a map, there are more than 3,000 miles between Ho Chi Minh City and Baghdad. On the political landscape, there aren't nearly enough miles to suit the Bush administration.

In preparing the American public for war in the Persian Gulf, President Bush has said repeatedly that the brewing conflict "is not another Vietnam." Vice President Quayle, dispatched to the Middle East for New Year's with the troops, recited the company line: "This is not another Vietnam."

Dutifully informed about what it is not, we are left to wonder what the Iraqi conflict is. This in itself is no easy nut to crack.

By distancing this recent war of nerves from the Vietnam War, the White House means to decry the type of vacillating policies that transformed Southeast Asia into a quagmire for the American military.

The legacy left by Vietnam is that the United States failed to go full out in accomplishing its mission; the military was willing but the politicians were not, that's the impression.

This time around, the president envisions a war where the objectives are clear and forthright, the consensus is steadfast, the morale is high and the assaults are swift and certain. No Vietnam.

It sounds good, reads well. Trouble is, a lot of people have had a lot of time to think about it. Don't speak ill of thoughtful people, but recognize some of those thinking souls know a lot of angles.

No one knows more angles than the thief of Baghdad himself. Saddam Hussein directed troops into Kuwait and then thumbed his nose at all available peace overtures.

When President Bush suggested that James Baker go to Baghdad and remind all involved that Saddam is a filthy animal, the Iraqi leader penciled the U.S. secretary of state on an appointments list behind such diplomatic luminaries as Kurt Waldheim, Willy Brandt, John Connally and Muhammad Ali. (The good news is that at least Geraldo didn't get a personal audience either.)

Back in Washington, dialogue is also hard to come by. Members of Congress are miffed because President Bush worked over the United Nations Security Council in looking for the authority to use force against Iraq, but didn't visit Capitol Hill for consent. Bush wasn't thrilled at the prospect of domestic dissent.

Never mind that Congress gave itself the authority last fall to call its members back into session to cast a vote on the gulf crisis. Lawmakers didn't see fit to volunteer the action, but are upset Bush didn't make them do it.

Then comes Missouri's Richard Gephardt, the designated burr under Bush's saddle. The Democratic leader said last weekend that Congress might cut off funds for the armed forces if the president orders a military strike without legislative approval.

That must be comforting to troops in the Persian Gulf, knowing American lawmakers could shut off funding if they get their feelings hurt by the president.

The only people showing any courage so far, showing any semblance of doing their jobs, are the youngsters we have sent into the Saudi sand.

Remember the words: This is not another Vietnam. We won't let the politicians fight this war.

We can hope the vow holds true, but don't bet on it.