That's the question facing Gov. Schwarzenegger as he approaches a midnight deadline to sign or veto a bill that would put on the February ballot a proposition calling on the U.S. to immediately withdraw from Iraq. The governor ought to veto the measure posthaste for many reasons. Among them:

It is pointless: A California referendum on the war has zero force; it would be in no way binding. Supporters claim it would measure public opinion, but then, so do countless polls. Really, if Californians want to stop the war, they would do far better to pressure the state's 55 members of Congress -- that is where the real power to make change lies.

It is part of the legislature's ploy to weaken term limits: It's no mistake that Don Perata and Fabian Nunez, whose legislative leadership posts will soon come to an end if they don't succeed in passing a February anti-term limits measure, chose this special election to put the Iraq proposition on the ballot. They're hoping it will turn out a more liberal electorate, which, in turn, would be more likely to vote to extend their stays in office.

It is insulting: The measure calls on the president to "end the United States occupation of Iraq." Occupation? We remain in Iraq at the request of a democratically elected government. It's fair game to think that our presence there is unwise, even harmful, but it is no more an "occupation" than is our decades-long presence in Germany or South Korea.

And while the proposed ballot measure includes boilerplate about being "in support of the men and women serving in the Armed Forces of the United States," you are not "supporting" the troops if you are calling them occupiers. Ours is a volunteer military. While some soldiers signed on before the invasion, many others have signed on or re-upped since then. They have chosen to be part of this policy. To say they are engaging in an "occupation" is an insult to their sacrifice and their duty.

Even if there were some purpose in holding a state referendum on federal policy -- and I don't think there is -- there are much better ways to do so than this. We could, for example, vote on a measure that calls for the end of the war without insulting those participating in it. But since the real purpose of this bill has nothing to do with ending the war -- and everything to do with keeping self-serving legislators in power -- we shouldn't be surprised by its crude wording.

Schwarzenegger is in a bind here. Vetoing the bill would cost him favor with two of the most powerful figures in Sacramento -- Nunez and Perata -- with whom he's currently trying to broker a health-care policy. But if it's a choice between standing with the pols or standing with the troops, that choice ought to be easy.

**UPDATE: The governor has vetoed the bill. Good move, Arnold.