‘War Lobby’ Urges Military Solution : Hawks: Advocates see a necessity to either remove Hussein or destroy Iraq’s war machine.

As the Bush Administration backs away from talk of war with Iraq and emphasizes a long-term campaign of economic sanctions and international isolation, a vocal “war lobby” has emerged to press for more bellicose policies.

Bush and his top aides now argue, at least publicly, that the United States should concentrate on using sanctions and diplomacy to prod Iraq into leaving Kuwait. Once that has been accomplished, the United States would then need to establish a new international security structure for long-term containment of Saddam Hussein’s military power, officials say.

But advocates of military action against Iraq argue that such a lengthy commitment of U.S. power to the Persian Gulf cannot sustain public support at home or political support in the Arab world. They point out that even the mention of such a long-term security structure by Secretary of State James A. Baker III last week was enough to set off a sharp negative reaction in Arab capitals.

Also, they argue, Hussein represents such a threat that containment is not a sufficient response. Instead, they say, the United States must either remove Hussein or destroy Iraq’s military machine--steps that would almost certainly involve the use of military power.

For now, the question remains “an intellectual debate,” as one senior Administration official sympathetic with the war lobby put it, because the United States does not yet have the forces in place to launch an offensive action against Iraq even if Bush decided he wanted to do so.

“Events have not reached a point where we’re forced to choose,” the official said. But relatively soon, as heavier U.S. equipment begins to arrive in Saudi Arabia, that picture will change, the official said--and both the pro-war argument and its advocates are likely to be heard with renewed strength.

The war lobby has both a domestic and a foreign component.

Domestically, Indiana Sen. Richard G. Lugar, the most influential Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been the leading congressional voice in favor of a military policy against Iraq.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Lugar argued that a policy relying solely on a continued buildup of U.S. forces in the region is “probably insufficient” because it would “leave us in the sands of Saudi Arabia indefinitely” watching Hussein and his quest for nuclear weapons while waiting for hostilities to break out.

American policy “has to lead to a sizable change in Iraq’s military forces,” he said, “or I think we are in an untenable position.” At least some military officials are known to support Lugar’s view, fearing that the public would not support keeping U.S. forces in the Middle East for a long time.

“We ought not to rush in until we have our affairs in order,” Lugar said, adding that he did not believe sufficient troops for an attack would be in place until October. But “there comes an optimum time,” he said, when Iraq is weakened by sanctions and U.S. forces are ready. Once that point is reached, according to Lugar, “the aggression has to be repelled along with the force that caused it.”

Lugar, joined by several other influential members of Congress, had dinner with Bush late in August at which he outlined his views to the President. “The consensus of the group was that even if one agreed with my ‘final mission’ statement, it should not be something we should be enunciating at this time,” Lugar said.

Although Lugar is the only prominent member of Congress to publicly advocate a military course, he has been joined by many prominent members of Washington’s policy- and opinion-making Establishment.

Such individuals, although they hold no formal government post, can often be highly influential in shaping government policy, either because of longstanding personal ties with current officials or because they help rally public support for an option that an Administration might be reluctant to advocate in public.

The “war lobby” first publicly appeared in Washington late in August when a spate of articles appeared on newspaper opinion pages and in influential magazines insisting that Bush should take a stronger stand in favor of eliminating Iraq’s military potential. At about the same time, Lugar made his first public statements about the need for military power to remove Hussein.

That campaign began at the same time that senior Administration officials privately started telling reporters that Bush had decided, at least for now, to leave aside the military option and concentrate on diplomacy and economic sanctions as a way of ending the crisis.

Among those leading the war campaign, one group is made up of former government officials and private-sector policy experts whose main concern has been to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

Individuals in a second, larger and more influential group share a long history of support for Israel, which has long seen Iraq as a major threat that it wishes to eliminate.

Among the more publicly prominent members of that group are columnist William Safire, former Reagan Administration defense official Richard N. Perle and Martin Peretz, editor of New Republic magazine, all of whom have publicly campaigned for the Administration to adopt elimination of Hussein as its ultimate policy option.

Although former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger has not explicitly advocated war against Iraq, a mid-August article he wrote analyzing the threat posed by Hussein was widely seen as giving support to the pro-war side.

The advocates of a war policy also have been bolstered by analysts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank with close ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the capital’s leading pro-Israel lobbying organization. Washington Institute experts on the region are frequently quoted in television, radio and newspaper stories about the gulf standoff, although their organization’s pro-Israel orientation is seldom cited.

Overseas, in addition to officials from Israel, some from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the exiled government of Kuwait have quietly--behind the scenes--advocated U.S. military action. Some British officials have also voiced pro-war views to reporters, usually anonymously, although the official British position supports the Administration’s more gradual approach.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been the most public of the Middle Eastern leaders in supporting a policy whose implementation could well lead to war.

Last Saturday, while Baker was in Cairo, Mubarak said that the gulf would be unstable so long as Iraq possessed chemical weapons and continued to seek nuclear arms. The Egyptian president suggested that only a military defeat of Iraq could ensure peace.

Administration officials said that throughout the crisis, Middle Eastern governments that favor war have tried to influence American opinion by serving as sources for news reports suggesting that international sanctions against Iraq are being violated. The stories, some of which Administration officials insist have been exaggerated, could be designed to influence U.S. public opinion by convincing people that the non-military options will be ineffective, the officials say.

Times staff writer Maura Reynolds contributed to this story.