WHAT'S the solution? One alternative approach would be to wait for economic sanctions to ruin Iraq's economy. The destruction of Nicaragua's economy by U.S. sanctions--though they were relatively weak and took several years to work--illustrates that military force is not our only foreign policy tool.

A more immediate and sustainable answer is a negotiated settlement with Hussein, and it appears likely that he would withdraw from Kuwait and release all hostages in exchange for some oil fields.

Would such a strategy be appeasement? Since Hussein would be withdrawing from Kuwait and American armies advancing, it could hardly be counted as a huge victory for Iraq. But more importantly, in any negotiated scenario, a permanent U.N. military presence in the Middle East would be necessary to prevent future Iraqi agression. Such a strategy would rely on military doctrines of deterrence--not goodwill--to keep peace in the Middle East.

Would such a strategy work? It has for Israel for more than 15 years. Would such a strategy be costly? Certainly, but much less so than a bloody war and a global recession.

There is no costless solution to the Persian Gulf crisis; our country will pay with lives and money. The question is whether our leaders will seek to minimize the loss of life--American or otherwise--by searching out non-military solutions. Can President Bush honestly tell the American people he has fairly considered every non-war alternative?

Perhaps Bush is just too "tired" of waiting to try to avoid war. It is a tragedy that we have a leader who mistakes impatience for leadership.