We are still over a year away from the presidential election, but it appears that most campaigns are already in full swing. The Republican contenders have been jockeying for position within their party for some time now, trying to curry favor with the influential bloc of conservative voters that plays so key a role in the primary. On the Democratic side, President Clinton has started to make informal campaign stops and has stepped up his fundraising efforts.

It is looking more and more likely that the Republican and Democratic nominees will be joined by a third challenger in this election. Of the various possibilities that have been tossed around, perhaps the most well-received is that of General Colin L. Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Despite the glowing press coverage he has received, Powell does not merit our support should he choose to run for the presidency.

It is ironic that Powell owes his fame to the arguably successful outcome of the Persian Gulf War. As The New York Times Magazine pointed out in a piece earlier this summer, Powell was reluctant to commit U.S. forces to the war. He only offered military options to Defense Secretary Dick Cheney after they were demanded of him.

But when the war ended with a resounding victory for the Allied forces, Powell was at every press conference, ready to take credit for making the correct decision to intervene in the region. His earlier opposition to American involvement in the region was never mentioned.

Being overcautious in the use of military force is a Powell trademark. Powell also opposed intervening in the Bosnian crisis in its early days, when it would have been much less costly to resolve. The so-called "Powell Doctrine" calls for military intervention only when easy, painless success is all but guaranteed.

Such an approach to security issues conveniently frees the military leader from having to make tough choices between national interest and human lives. The only problem is that many very necessary courses of action have very real costs. This raises an important question: Does Colin Powell have what it takes to make the difficult choices that a president must make? Is he willing to make decisions that may be in the nation's best interest but aren't necessarily popular or easy to defend?

One example of a case where Powell made the popular decision instead of the correct one relates directly to the Gulf War. Reluctant to enter the conflict in the first place, Powell made no effort to take the war to its logical conclusion: the removal of President Sad-dam Hussein from power. As a result, Iraq was left under Hussein's despotic rule, and it is only a matter of time before Iraq begins to destabilize the region once again.

In defending himself against these charges, Powell points out that continuing media coverage "was starting to make it look as if we were engaged in slaughter for slaughter's sake." Such a response is vintage Powell, demonstrating greater concern for appearances than for geopolitical realities. Powell could have explained to the American people why continuing the conflict was necessary. He instead chose the easy way out, in order to keep his public image intact.

Regardless of how much credit Powell deserves (or doesn't deserve) for the Gulf War, we must recognize that the conflict is now a part of the past. The war's resolution has not brought lasting peace and stability to Iraq, to say nothing of the Middle East as a region. The question the American people are justified in asking General Powell is (to borrow from Janet Jackson): What have you done for us lately?

The answer is precious little. Powell has shown military leadership, but he has no experience in the very different businesses of government and politics. We should respect Colin Powell for his dedicated service to our military. We should respect Colin Powell for his dedicated service to our military. We should admire him for his rise from the streets of the South Bronx to the hallowed halls of the Pentagon. But whether we should elect him the next president of the United States is another question entirely.

David B. Lat's column appears on alternate Tuesdays.