KENNETT, Mo. -- Americans have been living through a series of unusual and nontraditional events in recent weeks and months, starting with the horrendous, nation-shaking attacks on our mainland and extending through the reactions, both official and unofficial, in the days following.

The first public reaction was one of disbelief and horror, moving to a response of sorrow, anger and renewal of our patriotism in this darkest of moments. The official reaction, while encompassing the public's, also called for a declaration of war against terrorism, a swift military retribution that would bring the culprits to justice and a reassertion of the nation's military might and prowess.

Our president and his official representatives assured an unsettled, worried public that not only would the U.S. dispense justice in the form of military destruction, but we would bring about the capture of our sworn al-Qaida enemies and their leader, Osama bin Laden.

Americans had only a brief period to digest the horror and sheer effrontery of the Muslim fanatics before our president declared a verbal war against the well-known enemy of peace and tranquility, Saddam Hussein, the despotic leader of the nation of Iraq and a man who had caused the first President Bush a great deal of anguish and concern. In speech after speech, our incumbent president declared, with only soft voices of rebuttal, the need for America to destroy this decades-long Arab leader, and on occasion would include in his call for destruction what he chose to call the "axis of evil," which encompassed our detractors in both Iran and North Korea.

The war declaration against Hussein's Iraq has drawn the most attention if only because of the unprincipled conduct of the regime since the end of the Gulf War and its reported efforts to obtain, and subsequently us, "weapons of mass destruction." Some have even voiced the opinion that the president's take-no-prisoner threats against Hussein have taken us to the point of a declared war, minus the consent of the U.S. Congress and the United Nations, but this is not an accurate description of the events at this moment. President Bush has said the threat by Hussein must be challenged and he has invited the rest of the free world to join in this task.

In the meantime, Congress has dealt with the crisis in piecemeal fashion, with the administration movements toward war drawing support from its congressional friends and questioning doubts from its partisan opponents. For the American public as a whole, the question has produced a wide variety of reactions, from unquestioned patriotism to questioning doubts over the consequences of such a bold response. This absence of certain affirmation has been obvious within the U.N. as well, with only our unquestioning ally, the British government, ready to throw in with its historic friends.

To make the current impasse more imposing, as well as puzzling, than even a fiction-author could imagine is the yet undecided outcome of next month's general elections in the U.S., with the very distinct possibility that the results could well provide a referendum on both immediate and subsequent policy decisions by the United States. The election of enough members of the president's party to permit a return of Republican control in the Senate, directly involved in approving or disallowing foreign policy steps, could well be the trigger required to head thousands of American troops back again to the Middle East.

The likelihood of Nov. 5 serving as a conclusive mandate of a specific U.S. foreign policy is remote, even if results serve to create a new environment in Washington. Even if a candidate's views are an important component of voters' criteria for selection, it's unlikely that many of us will be willing to judge politicians on a single, inclusive issue, even if candidates could be persuaded to offer their views prior to the election. It just won't happen, even if the solution to the election. It just won't happen, even if the solution would supply clearer assessments of the public's views and moods.

In the meantime, it would be well for thoughtful citizens to consider the basic unanswered questions now facing the nation. We need to recognize first that whatever decisions are made politically are made by representatives of one sort or another by a myriad of political jurisdictions, whether this be state legislatures, congresses or other elected officials. These are vital decisions, affecting our lives and liberties, and they are issues that run the gamut from how much of our money will be spent for taxes to what behavior is considered a crime to whether we go to war. Our representative government is closer to democracy than monarchy, and for this reason it has been hailed as one of the great political advances of modern times, yet it is only a step in the direction of democracy. It has certain flaws, pointed out as early as the 18th century by Rousseau up to Hannah Arendt in our age. As James Madison declared in "The Federalist 10," the concerns of the troubled lose force as they are filtered through the process.

Seldom does out electoral process operate in the field of foreign policy. In truth those decisions which are most vital -- matters of war and peace, life and death -- power rests in the hands of the president and a small group of advisers. We don't notice this when wars have a great degree of justification, as World War II, but we begin to take notice when we find ourselves in the midst of a different and unique situation, as evidenced in the current terrorism environment.

Nothing is less justified, however, than the assertion already made by some of the president's closest, influential advisers that only those in command at the moment have the qualifications to decide for the American public what their world in the years ahead shall be. This thought may haunt Saddam Hussein and other despots, but for millions of Americans it is a disturbing reminder of the days just before Vietnam.

Jack Stapleton is the editor of Missouri News & Editorial Service.