NEWTON'S LAW: SAVE FACE? AMERICANS THINK SADDAM SHOULD LOSE HIS FACE

I have not been one to jump on the bandwagon of media lambasting that has flourished like crabgrass since the Persian Gulf War's beginning.

My loyalty has nothing to do with allegiance for professional brethren; I am critical plenty of the press. I just don't feel the new media have behaved so badly in bringing us the war.

Sure, the TV folks take shots in the dark at some sketchy information; they're in confusing surroundings and on live in front of millions of eyes. They usually qualify their speculation as unconfirmed guesswork and the audience should understand the strains of their assignment.

Sure, the print journalists ask what seem to be simple-minded and ridiculous questions at the press briefings. Ferreting out information from guarded individuals sometimes involves the posing of unguarded questions. Rudimentary inquiries often gain cogent responses.

Still, there is one line of questioning I wish they would abandon. It is framed in the idea that American military leaders might want to speculate on why Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is ordering certain actions.

The allied leaders usually patiently dodge the questions, mustering all their military discipline to keep from rolling their eyes. What they might want to say is this:

How the heck should I know what he's thinking?

Their answer would be well-grounded. Persons knowing what Saddam Hussein is thinking have probably already found themselves an aimless emirate and are busy making plans for global havoc.

It doesn't seem like too wild a claim to say that few people are like the Iraqi dictator.

While military men refer to logic, geography, firepower and history for a determination of what battlefield strategy might be used against their forces, allied commanders in this campaign have worked wonders with the latter three but thrown all guesswork on logic out the window.

Have empathy for George Bush, who has struggled since August to place Saddam Hussein into some reasonable perspective. It is next to impossible. There is no quantifiable comparison.

How do you deal with a man capable of anything? If the man will dump oil into a life-sustaining gulf, if he will manipulate human captives for propaganda purposes, or put them in harm's way as protection, if he will authorize the launching of missiles into neutral nations, if he will destroy his own countrymen with chemical bombs, why should we be surprised by the mere display of poor military judgment?

Let Gorbachev howl. Let the Jordanians whine. The allies have no choice but to gut this man... if not physically, then at least by destroying his ability to function as a leader. He turned the world upside down for eight months and must be made to pay for his dangerous folly.

For its part, the United States has done good work in reclaiming Kuwait. The shot of national confidence is welcome. America has done less well with enemies that are elusive, shadowy sorts with global airports as their battlegrounds.

A bomb well-placed in a luggage compartment, a ship hijacked, professors and clergymen grabbed from Beirut streets... those do more to shake up the United States than a desert full of tanks.

Terrorism is the one weapon Saddam Hussein has left; no one, given the gruesome history of the man, doubts that he is afraid to employ it. The allies are justified in their rout of Iraq's forces.

Saddam must not be allowed to save face. Most Americans would prefer that he be left without a face.