I found myself fervently wishing for Saddam Hussein's swift demise Wednesday night.

I usually don't allow myself such negative, self-corrupting thoughts. Wishing for someone's death is evil, callous and shameful.

But when the first bombs struck "targets of military opportunity" in downtown Baghdad, I reflexively hoped that one had hit Saddam.

Only one other time have I felt such emotions. It was after Sept. 11, 2001 For weeks I wanted Osama bin Laden dead. That wish has faded today; his capture and imprisonment would be enough.

With Saddam, my fleeting hope wasn't based on thoughts of justice or revenge - but cowardice.

I want a quick and easy out of this war. No major civilian losses, no American casualties. Just a precision-guided bull's-eye on the ultimate target.

Then we could call this war over - a success. Or could we?

Even a short war - with a decisive and even humane victory - doesn't mean we can dismiss questions about our motives and the morality of this conflict.

Unknown motives

Why are we really in Iraq? Is it to remove a threat to the world's safety, to liberate an oppressed people or really to protect America's financial interests there?

Kenny Lewis Jr., a veteran who lives in Gulf Manor, wrote to me about his doubts about the motives for this war.

In 1987, Lewis was serving aboard one of several U.S. ships that accompanied Kuwaiti oil tankers through mine-filled waters in the Gulf of Oman, the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war.

Two Iraqi missiles hit another warship in the area, the USS Stark. Lewis was among those ordered to the Persian Gulf. Lewis and his shipmates expected to engage Iraq but instead were told to protect the re-flagged Kuwaiti tankers.

"It was disappointing to us to not be allowed to retaliate against Iraq," he recalls.

"How could Iraq fire two Exocet missiles at a U.S. Navy ship, killing 37 U.S. sailors, wounding 21 others, and the U.S. not do anything to Iraq?

"This was the Iraq that we are currently preparing to go to war against. The same leader - Saddam Hussein."

U.S. forces didn't battle Iraq until four years later, in Kuwait, again to protect oil and natural gas reserves and help the Kuwaiti people.

This time, though, in 2003, our leaders are disavowing any economic motives.

President Bush said that the United States "has no ambition in Iraq except to remove a threat. Our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done."

More than oil and gas

But is it really that simple?

When their work is done, will they find weapons of mass destruction? If they don't find any, then we lose a key moral justification for this war.

If our military doesn't root out all of Saddam's supporters, and those who remain continue endangering Iraqis after we leave, we lose another.

If Iraq replaces one tyrant with another, then this war would have accomplished little.

That leaves an economic goal - protecting oil and gas resources.

Lewis, 37, says he supports our troops, but he wants our government to level with us if it's about oil.

"Our political leaders may be doing what's in the best interest of our country," he writes.

"Having greater access to Persian Gulf resources would doubtlessly benefit the U.S. ... Only with the provenance of war understood can we determine if war is justified," he wrote.

I need more, clear, moral - not financial - grounds for what we're doing in Iraq.

For my soul's sake, if not for my country's.

E-mail damos@enquirer.com or phone 768-8395