COLUMN RIGHT : An Ideal Case for Military Intervention : There are tests we must meet before committing our forces. Clearly they are met in the gulf.

In 1984, while I was Secretary of Defense, I proposed several “tests” governing the definition of a situation in which the United States should--and could effectively--commit armed forces to combat. By these criteria, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait qualifies as a clear-cut case for U.S. military intervention. And perhaps for the first time since before the Vietnam War, optimum political conditions also exist for effective action.

The first test requires that our vital interests be at stake: The issues involved must be so important to the future of the United States and our allies that we are prepared to commit enough forces to win.

That the vital interests of America and our allies are at stake in the current situation cannot be questioned. We and our allies in Europe and Japan simply cannot live in a world where a dictator backed by a million-man army seizes control of the oil that fuels our industrial economies, affects the rate of inflation and helps determine whether we can maintain our standard of living. Our survival would be at stake.

Second, there must be some reasonable assurance of the support of the American people. A President cannot fight a war abroad and also one at home with Congress. That was the lesson of Vietnam. The nation has to be united; the American people have to understand why the interest at stake is vital. And they must appreciate the cost of not acting.

Already, there seems to be full recognition among Americans--and fortunately among many other countries--that if we do not stop Saddam Hussein now, then nothing will stop him in the days and weeks ahead. People remember the gas lines of the 1970s, but they also know what happens when you let a Hitler roam unchecked. The deployment by President Bush of elements of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, plus F-16s and F-15s, to Saudi Arabia sends this signal loud and clear to Hussein.

Third, there must be clearly defined military objectives that can be secured. The U.S. mission to escort non-belligerent commercial ships out of the Persian Gulf in 1987 is one example demonstrating that military efforts can be effective if their scope is clearly defined.

Our objective in the present situation is equally clear, though more grave and surely more costly: Get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and prevent him from going further.

Fourth, we must have the capability to achieve our objectives: We have to act wholeheartedly, with strong enough forces and the intention of winning.

We did regain great military strength in the 1980s and there is no question of our ability to take on Iraq, especially now that we have secured the unprecedented cooperation of the Saudis in stationing U.S. forces on their soil, and the support of many other countries.

Yet it is in this area of our capability that I admit worry. The defense budget being considered by Congress would require deep cuts in military manpower and acquisition of the latest high-tech weaponry, and cancellation of many of our best planes and other military equipment, which would gravely weaken our capabilities.

It should not escape notice here that the very systems that many in Congress want to cut, such as the B-2 bomber and the Stealth fighter plane, would have enormous potential in the present situation because of Iraq’s weak air defenses. Furthermore, eliminating the availability of chemical weapons, also on the congressional agenda, would weaken our deterrent capability in a war with Iraq. Iraq has a very large chemical weapons capability and a leader with no scruples in using poison gas.

Finally, U.S. forces must be committed only as a last resort.

All diplomatic efforts at negotiation and multilateral economic sanctions should be attempted, as we are doing, before military action is begun.

Although economic boycotts have generally not proved effective in the past, the nearly unanimous United Nations vote supporting a worldwide boycott of Iraq is extraordinarily encouraging. If all the world’s nations actually carry through, then, after a number of months, Iraq might listen to reason.

Behind all the multilateral actions, boycotts and diplomatic maneuverings, however, the crucial factor is that the United States stands ready to take unilateral military action.

As he darkly ponders his next move, Saddam Hussein should not doubt that he is facing an America ready, willing and capable of committing forces to combat--and winning.