COLUMN LEFT : Talk With the Brute, or It’s War Unknown : Direct discussions between the U.S. and Iraq are the only hope for a bloodless solution.

“If World War III ever starts,” Robert F. Kennedy once told me, “it won’t start suddenly. Each side will take an action to which the other side will feel compelled to respond as a matter of prestige and credibility. Finally we will reach the point where it seems the only choice is who shall strike first. And that will be the end of the world.”

Although the stakes are smaller, we seem to have painted ourselves into just this kind of a corner in the uninhabitable sands of the Middle East. And in a travesty of democracy, a violation of the Constitution, the decision--whether or not to go to war--seems to reside solely within the modestly intelligent but very stubborn mind of George Bush. Congress has once again abdicated its responsibility to decide and debate questions of war and peace, preferring to leave the issues to the secret councils of an enigmatic executive power.

Of course Saddam Hussein is a nasty, brutal and even dangerous leader. His conquest of Kuwait was a totally unjustified aggression. But it is done. We failed to take immediate action, and preferred to assemble massive forces giving Iraq time to expand and entrench its defenses. Now we must decide whether to attack Iraq, a course which will almost certainly--although nothing is certain in war--result in tens of thousands of casualties and whose outcome cannot be foreseen.

Writing about the Civil War, Bruce Catton stated, “A singular fact about modern war is that it takes charge. Once it has begun it has to be carried to its conclusion, and carrying it there sets in motion events that may be beyond men’s control.”

This truth was brutally reconfirmed for the United States in North Korea and in Vietnam. There is no foreseeable end to a war in Iraq. Even should Kuwait be retaken we will have to continue the fighting across the Iraqi border until we conquer that country also, or at least destroy its leadership. That conflict will almost certainly involve Israeli entry into the battle, and the participation of other countries--a melange of combatants with widely different interests. There is no way to predict the final outcome, except that it will be bloody, destructive and costly enough to weaken severely an already declining American economy.

Is there, then, no way out from so conjectural and potentially disastrous a course? There can be no certainty about the answer. But one thing is certain, we are failing--abysmally, unconscionably--to pursue alternatives.

It seems self-evident that direct talks between the United States and Hussein offer the only hope for a peaceful solution. One recalls our unwillingness to negotiate with Hanoi because “it would constitute a recognition of their importance as a belligerent.” Of course talks with Hanoi might not have affected the course of the war. And discussion with Hussein might be futile. But to accept military action as the only possibility almost guarantees a bloody and uncertain conflagration.

Along with negotiations, we should make it clear that we intend to defend Saudi Arabia. As for Kuwait, some kind of compromise is inevitable. It is not in the national interest of the United States to begin a large-scale military conflict in order to return every inch of Kuwaiti soil to the small, affluent oligarchy that ruled that country. At the same time we should continue and strengthen sanctions as part of the effort to persuade Hussein that his interest, too, lies in a peaceful resolution.

If George Bush launches a war without having exhausted every possibility of a peaceful accommodation, he will have the blood of thousands on his hands. Moreover, he will have accelerated the now obvious decline of the American economy and of American ability to help maintain world order. No American interest--whether it is the protection of our allies or the free flow of oil--is jeopardized by a patient and perhaps long-sustained effort to arrive at a non-military resolution. Unless, of course, our hidden purpose is to destroy Hussein and his war machine. But to embark on a deliberate effort to obliterate them will cause enormous damage to the United States--in lives, in money and in a further diminution of the ideals that are the bonds of the Republic.

For the half century since World War II, we confronted a far more dangerous foe than Iraq. We did not go to war. Instead our policy was containment. And it worked. The same type of policy in the Middle East is certainly worth a try. Of course, that calls for patient endurance. The boys won’t be home by Christmas. But if it does succeed, they will be home alive.