To decide where we’re going, we must first learn where we are. We learn that on Page 84 of Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies. In 1993, the United States retaliated against Saddam Hussein for his attack on the life of President George H.W. Bush with a missile strike on Saddam’s intelligence headquarters. Not a lot of kills — it was after hours — but Saddam got the message: Monkeying around with terrorism against the United States could land a missile on his head.

And the equation changed. The United States was now the imminent threat to Iraq. As Clarke writes: “Subsequent to that June 1993 retaliation, the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement communities never developed any evidence of further Iraqi support for terrorism directed against Americans. Until we invaded Iraq in 2003.”

Now you get the picture. Before the March 19, 2003, invasion of Iraq, we were overflying the north and the south of Iraq. We knew everything that was going on in both areas. We knew pretty well that Saddam had been quieted in Baghdad and that there was no evidence of an imminent threat to the United States from Iraq. French intelligence, Israeli intelligence and U.S. intelligence all confirmed this. Now we know there were no weapons of mass destruction, no al Qaeda and no terrorism at the time of our invasion.

Other factors should be understood to appreciate the chaos imminent in Iraq after the June 30 transfer of sovereignty. First, in a military victory, ordinarily the opposing army has surrendered. Not so here. The majority of the Republican Guard — some 400,000 with weapons in hand — receded into Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle. Many of this army felt and were defeated. But a substantial number of Saddam loyalists immediately took a position of defiance.

They, together with released prisoners, incoming insurgents and disillusioned and hostile Sunnis, have joined in opposition to the U.S. occupation. We don’t like to call our presence “occupation.” But the fact is, we have not been met with kisses and flowers.

Our hesitation at the airport, our failure to take the city of Baghdad, permitted looting. The thieves, rapists and looters took over for a good two- to three-week period; now, a year later, robberies and rapes occur daily in Baghdad and in the Sunni Triangle. A year later, the people still suffer from want of electricity and water. They are hunkered down, not knowing who will prevail or who will be in charge after June 30. The borders of Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran are open.

The word is out. If you want to find the infidel, come to Baghdad. While there was no terrorism with Saddam, there is terrorism now. Perhaps we can eliminate them as they arrive, but it’s doubtful. Lack of security has led to the mistaken killing of photographers, newsmen and Iraqi families.

We suffer from an unpopular appointed council, whose de-Baathification policy has made hostile many of the Sunni leaders and many of the army leaders. Some have joined with the insurgents. We suffer from a flawed constitution that, on the one hand, gives a segment of the population — the Kurds — autonomy and, on the other hand, allows for an Islamic democracy that we publicly say we will not countenance.

We have yet to figure out the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, the single most important leader in Iraq, whom we are told is controlled by his Iranian-leaning son. We suffer from an undercover Iranian influence determined to take over. At present, the Iranians lay low, feeling that the United States is doing their work for them.

The police force that we have developed is half-trained and inexperienced. It could be that those who take over on July 1 can obtain law and order, but we must remember that the United States has yet to obtain law and order.

We refused to commit sufficient troops in Iraq. Now we launch the same broad Vietnam policy — building and destroying, Iraqifying Iraq. To accomplish this by June 30 is doubtful. We have our fingers crossed and hope it works. But there is no question that we have turned off our allies and the Arab world. We have given terrorism a cause celebre. We have more terrorism now rather than less; and finally, after 2½ years, we are pursuing Osama bin Laden.

We let him go at Tora Bora when we assigned the task to the nationals in Afghanistan. Then we redirected our effort in Afghanistan to Iraq, practically abandoning the campaign against Osama. Only now have we trained and committed Pakistani forces along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. On a visit last week, we found the State Department’s Narcotics Division had helicopters and night goggles, but they had not yet been delivered to the Pakistani forces looking for Osama.

While Iraq is in doubt, we feel more confident about Afghanistan. For one, the people are with us. They remember our help and friendship in turning back the Soviet invasion. When they report a cache of arms, we go out and find it. In Iraq, we have had thousands of reports and have yet to find a cache. Hamid Karzi, the president of Afghanistan, is liked and respected, in contrast with our dubious council in Baghdad. He is working with the warlords and against drugs and against the Taliban. Most of all, it’s a NATO effort in Afghanistan with the Canadians, the French and the Germans with us.

President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, under the most difficult circumstances, is committed. As long as we can keep him alive, we will stay on the road to success. But we limit our effort to $2 billion in Afghanistan while appropriating in excess of $100 billion for Iraq. The plan is for security by the end of the year in Afghanistan. In contrast, the plan is for insecurity in Iraq beginning July 1.

One thing we learned on our recent trip to the Middle East is the location of the front line in the war on terrorism. We spent a good hour with King Abdullah of Jordan reviewing the war on terrorism. He ended the conference by saying to end the war on terrorism you must go to Israel-Palestine. The prime minister of Kuwait counseled: You must go to Israel-Palestine. The president of Pakistan said: “Settle the Israel-Palestine problem and terrorism will disappear the world around.” The 1½-hour conference on a Friday night with the president of France ended with his counsel: “We need to go and settle the Israel-Palestine problem.” He told us all the countries in the region favor an international peacekeeping force to stop the killing, and France would gladly join. But it is opposed by Israel and the United States.

Admittedly, the Israel-Palestine question is complex. But we cannot begin to win the war on terrorism if we are not willing to go to the front line.

Sen. Hollings just returned from a tour of Iraq and the Middle East.