WASHINGTON: In the noisy public debate over whether the United States should attack Iraq, one prominent voice has hardly uttered a word.

Dovish Secretary of State Colin Powell, a beacon of hope for those who oppose unilateral military action, has been lying low since the middle of August and will be out of town next week on an unrelated mission to Africa that has otherwise attracted little interest within the administration.

Powell spent last week on vacation, partly in the Hamptons on Long Island, New York — a trendy venue which the Texan ranch-owner President George W. Bush has mocked — and so far this week he has kept to his Washington office with no public appearances.

The retired army general, who served as national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan, was not included in a meeting at the ranch of top Bush aides on US defence policy last week.

So is Powell battling behind the scenes for a more multilateralist approach to Iraq, for example through a final attempt to seek a UN resolution or by trying to rustle up some allies to help overthrow President Saddam Hussein?

Or is he merely awaiting his marching orders from Bush and his hawkish advisers, who say the United States has no choice but to get rid of Saddam before Iraq acquires nuclear weapons which might threaten the United States?

Before he took office in the Bush administration in January 2001, Powell, one of the most popular public figures in America in the last decade, was perhaps best known in policy circles for the military doctrine that bears his name.

This stipulated that the United States should not fight unless it has clear political objectives and can bring an overwhelming military advantage to the battle.

VIETNAM VETERAN: He also had a reputation for being reluctant to use of force. According to published accounts, after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, at first favoured a limited military operation to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraqi encroachment.