If Saddam Hussein happened to be web-surfing on Friday and punched up www.white-house.gov (heck, he's probably got it bookmarked), he would have been flattered.

Sure, maybe a little concerned as well. Perfectly understandable, when the president of the United States is telling the world that he's coming after you. But at least you got the big fellow's attention. In a big way.

Take a look at that home page. "President Bush to Send Iraq Resolution to Congress Today." "President Discusses Iraq, Domestic Agenda with Congressional Leaders." "Saddam Hussein's Deception and Defiance." Links guaranteed to make a megalomaniacal tyrant feel all tingly.

Then for the coolest link of all: "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America." Better print this one out. Let's see ... 30-some pages. He gets another cigar, mixes a screwdriver and heads poolside. What, more execution orders to sign? This'll teach those rascals a lesson. Now, where was I?

Where Saddam probably was Friday is the same place lots of people were -- trying to get their minds around a breathtakingly bold reformulation of American security doctrine.

It could have carried a subtitle, "Don't Mess with George (or Uncle Sam)."

Or maybe, "The Cold War is So Over."

Not that we didn't understand that. It might have taken awhile to sink in that the Russians, even though they still have enough nuclear weapons to toast us any time they want, no longer pose the sort of threat they did for decades. But last September, with the unleashing of unparalleled death and destruction by a few guys armed not with ICBMs but with boxcutters, the historical page was unmistakably turned.

It's in the harsh light of the new realities of terrorism and so-called rogue states that Bush & Co. have hatched the new strategy for keeping us safe and free. One thing about the authors (Condoleezza Rice reportedly first among them) can be said for sure: They don't need any assertiveness training.

In many ways, the new approach makes perfect sense. We know there are folks out there with the means and motive to do us grave damage. The price of failing to anticipate the danger has been made torturously clear. We're fortunate enough to have sufficient strength to have a good chance of keeping these enemies at bay -- or of doing them in.

What it takes, goes the thinking, is the will to use the tools at our disposal, force included. The president, in his foreword to the document, puts it simply: "We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies' plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act."

Thus emerges the notion that the United States is entirely within its rights to act preemptively, with force of arms, to stifle a perceived threat.

Of course, it's long been settled that countries don't have to wait until they are attacked to mount a response, if they see that an attack is imminent. Where it fast becomes murky is in a situation like the one now pertaining with Hussein's Iraq.

Yes, Iraq may be attempting to acquire weapons capable of inflicting mass casualties. But can we assert the right to attack based solely on an interpretation of what Hussein might do if such weapons were available? Would we want other countries -- India or Pakistan, for example, with their nukes at the ready -- to adopt the same standard?

The warning is out to terrorists in any case -- we'll do what's necessary to hunt you down. Rogue states? You boys had better do your rampaging amongst yourselves. To Americans who have just revisited the shock and grief of Sept. 11, 2001, a tough line toward those who want to hurt us is likely to be an easy sell.

But there's a risk here nevertheless -- a risk that we could become so infatuated with our newly asserted swagger that we don't realize how we look to the rest of the world.

With great power comes great responsibility, that much is obvious. And the United States certainly is in a better position than any other country to lead the way toward freedom and opportunity for people everywhere.

Sometimes, though, people want to work things out for themselves. Despite all our assurances to the contrary, some are likely to regard U.S. assertiveness as being driven less by altruism than old-fashioned self-interest, not to mention conceit.

They think we'll do whatever it takes to uphold our pampered lifestyle. And when the White House says we should never again permit another country to approach ours in military power, what they might deduce from that is: "You guys want to keep the whole world under your thumb. Forever."

As powerful as we are, a little humility would go a long way as we face dangers that cannot ultimately be overcome without the help of friends -- even if Saddam Hussein, having seen the treatment he's getting from the White House, decides to quit while he's ahead.

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.