Clinton states case for attack

WASHINGTON - President Clinton laid out a detailed case yesterday for prospective American military action against Iraq, saying "I guarantee you" that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein will unleash an arsenal of destruction someday if not stopped now.

Clinton

In a careful presentation aimed at the American public as well as reluctant allies overseas, Clinton also warned that failure to deal effectively with Saddam would only embolden tyrants and terrorists in the future.

A peaceful solution that would allow unrestricted U.N. weapons inspections "is by far our preference," Clinton said in a speech to Pentagon officials, following a briefing by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But he made clear that any deal would have to meet standards that have been unacceptable to Iraq so far: "Iraq must agree - and soon - to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country."

Hours later, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he would go to Baghdad later this week for what may be the last try for a diplomatic solution. Annan made his announcement after meeting with U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson and envoys from the four other permanent members of the Security Council - Britain, France, Russia and China. The five did not issue any written guidelines to him but offered what they called spoken "advice."

While this implied that Annan might have more leeway in any negotiations with Saddam than the Unites States intended, Richardson told reporters, "The United States is supportive of his trip. We wish him well. But we reserve the right to disagree if his conclusions are not in conformity with U.N. resolutions and our national interest."

The president's speech came as the White House intensified its bid to prepare the public for military action against Iraq. Lamenting that he may have to place U.S. troops "in harm's way," Clinton said the military is ready for the risk and "the American people have to be ready as well."

Striving to bring the threat home on another level, Clinton warned that Saddam personified the modern threat to nations in the post-Cold War era, when terrorists, drug traffickers and organized criminals make up an "unholy axis" that can use weapons of mass destruction.

AP PHOTO President Clinton talks with Marine Corps Gen. Charles Krulak at the Pentagon yesterday after discussing a possible airstrike on Iraq.

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity," the president said.

Clinton emphasized that Saddam had broken a promise, made under terms of the Gulf War cease-fire, to provide a complete accounting of his nation's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons within 15 days. "That's what he promised to do."

As for what happens after any campaign of allied airstrikes, Clinton said the U.S. would continue to monitor Iraq's weapons programs and would strike again any time Saddam tried to rebuild his arsenal.

In a response to Clinton's speech, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tarik Aziz said in a Cable News Network interview that the United States has no authority to attack Iraq. He said none of Iraq's neighbors favor an attack, while countries as far away as New Zealand, Australia and Britain are jumping to help the U.S. "It is not a coalition for peace. It is a belligerent coalition to destroy a nation," Aziz said.

Public opinion polls have shown most Americans favor airstrikes if Saddam fails to comply with U.N. resolutions requiring open, unfettered inspection of sites believed used to produce weapons of mass destruction. But the surveys also suggest misgivings. A Gallup Poll conducted earlier this week for CNN/USA Today found that only 45 percent supported military action if the United States were forced to go it alone; the survey also suggested public discomfort with Iraqi civilian casualties. If many civilians were to be killed, Americans were virtually split on removing Saddam, with 47 percent in favor and 45 percent opposed.

The administration is clearly struggling to keep remnants of the 1991 Gulf War coalition together as moderate Arab states, like Saudi Arabia, and possibly Bahrain, limit use of their territory for possible U.S. military operations against Iraq. Even within the NATO alliance, only Britain is ready to participate directly in airstrikes against Iraq.

The diminished nature of this support, coupled with the potential negative consequences of military action, appear to be the principal motivation for continuing to pursue diplomacy even at this late hour.

02-18-98