Okay: now I'm starting to wonder what the heck is going on here.

After a well-fought battle in Afghanistan - which is still seeing some action here and there - it looks like the much-vaunted War on Terror is either losing its steam or starting to meander in its tread. This is alarming, to say the least. We cannot appear to not know where we're going, or what we're doing, or we will lose the momentum of public support, the support of our allies and any chance of striking early fear in our enemies.

First up, we have these conflicting reports about what Secretary of State Colin Powell did or didn't say about the detainees in Cuba. According to a story in the Washington Post - which was quoting a draft of a memo from White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez - Powell was arguing that the detainees should all be treated as POWs, rather than "unlawful combatants."

But then, the Administration said that the reports were inaccurate: he wasn't advocating that they all be reclassified as POWs at the drop of a sound bite. He was saying that their classification should be determined on a case-by-case basis... maybe...? Details seem to be a bit sketchy about who said what and when.

What I'm really wondering is how we came to learn of this at all. Did The Washington Post just get lucky while dumpster-diving? Or was someone up high trying to make Powell look foolish - revenge for being "out of step" with the Administration...? This isn't the first time he's said one thing and Dubya has said another, after all.

That right there is troubling. Now, there could be a communication breakdown going on: our president seems to be sleeping while awake at times, and without Vice President Cheney (shown, left) to perch on his shoulder and whisper in his ear - as he's in his double-super-secret hideaway - certain conversations with his Secretary of State might be going on one ear and out the other. On the other hand, maybe Powell is shooting a bit too straight from the hip when he really should be keeping his mouth in the holster? Either way, it looks like we're going in several directions at once, and that is hardly assuring.

As for the detainees, the heart of the question has leaked out around the sides of the Administration's mouth: it's a matter of keeping options open. If we say the folks in Camp X-Ray are POWs, then they're not required to give out more than their name, rank and serial number. The flip side of that proviso is that we're not really supposed to ask for more than that, either. And I'm sure some of our leaders would like to have a little more out of them - especially when there's a good chance of "sleeper" cells still operating in Amerca's borders.

But guys, come on - why the heck didn't you hammer this out ahead of schedule? Now is not the time to be arguing about this: you should have had a solid plan in place before those folks landed in Gitmo. Our Marines are doubtlessly doing a fine job of watching after the detainees, but when it comes to having a good eye on the prison as a whole, the folks in the Administration are starting to remind me of Barney from "Andy Griffith."

And then there's the matter of our next targets: have we really made up our mind? Press: "Iraq?" Administration: "Maybe Iraq..."

Press: "Iraq!?!"

Administration: "Well, we've got to investigate that option..."

Press: "Iraq!"

Administration: "...um, no, not Iraq."

Press: "Ah... &@#$!!!"

Now, we've got to choose our next step carefully. By the time we went into Afghanistan, the Taliban had managed to alienate themselves from almost everyone of consequence. However, most of our other targets have too many hangers-on for such a forward assault to come off smelling like a rose.

Little dribs and drabs are sneaking out from behind closed doors, but right now - apart from military exercises in the Phillipines and mop-ups in Afghanistan - our next move doesn't seem to be moving at all. Worse, there's a sense of different talking heads having different objectives. My question is, if we knew this was going to be an extended campaign, then why the heck weren't we looking at our second move while in the midst of the first?

I'm really starting to wonder - if this is a war, why isn't it being fought like one? This is looking less like a carefully crafted, strategically minded campaign against international terrorists and the countries that harbor them, and more like an extended series of fly-by-night police actions against people we've had on our hit list for years. We started down the road with a certainty in our step that was good to see, but now we seem to have become drunk on cheap victory and fallen asleep on watch.

I sure hope certain folks in the Administration are taking this matter seriously. Whether it's to be fought with military force, better diplomacy in areas ill-served by previous Administrations, or - preferably - both, the War on Terror is a fight that we cannot afford to lose.

Any way the wind blows - doesn't really matter - to me...

Bohemian Rhapsody - Queen