Unlike the war of retribution against Al Qaeda terrorists in 2002, in both United States and United Kingdom, the necessity for this second war with Iraq in 2003 has had to be taken on faith.  Faith that is, in the leadership of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, in the precision bombing and urban combat skills of the joint forces, and in the evidence of Iraqi sins presented by Secretary of State Powell.

War was declared necessary to liberate Iraqis, to punish Iraq's transgressions of United Nations resolutions, to prevent terrorism, and more controversially to prevent Iraq -- in the future -- from threatening us with weapons of mass destruction.

They rightly emphasize that the Iraqi regime is a brutal and oppressive one -- but there have been many beastly regimes in the past without our invading states to correct them.  Some we historically have supported.

Many also question whether a destructive war is the best way to improve the lives of the Iraqi people.  Hence the plan for a war with little collateral damage.

Iraq's cheat and retreat strategy is a fact -- but much opinion outside the US favors continuing to constrain Iraq rather than invading.   For a decade, an economic blockade and aerial bombing have been Iraq's miserable lot.

Our leaders tell us that Iraq is linked to terrorism, but there is little evidence for that so far made public.  Secretary Powell referred to a small network harbored by Iraq; but that would not itself make Iraq worse than some other regimes in the middle east.  We cooperated in 1984 with Iran and in 1991 with Syria.

Iraq, they claim, threatens us with weapons of mass destruction -- but actual nuclear, biological and chemical weapons have not yet been shown on a large scale.  We have to believe this evidence will appear shortly as the coalition forces explore Iraq.

The threat to the United States and United Kingdom is not so obvious as a threat to Iraq's neighbor -- Israel.  In the US, support for Israel is generous and long standing.  Israel has a vigorous democracy and successful armed forces.  But in Europe, both public opinion and leadership are more balanced.  Many feel that Palestinians as well as Israelis have rights to a better life, and a government to go with it.

Bush and Blair have demonstrated that Iraq is cheating on its commitments to the United Nations -- but many Britons (and other Europeans) feel the sanctions and no-flight zones already had him constrained.  Why invade a sovereign state?

So, while the US population is supportive of President Bush, and the British population mostly approves of Blair's policy, all of us are taking the war largely on faith.  In democracy, wartime severely tests the bonds of leadership.