Indefinite Wait in Gulf Is Out, Bush Aide Says

The United States cannot afford to allow the conflict with Iraq to drag out indefinitely and is determined to bring it to a head, a senior Bush Administration official said Friday, explaining the President’s decision to virtually double the size of the U.S. force in the Persian Gulf.

And an actual ultimatum to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein could be the “next step” once all the new troops are in place by early January, said the official, who has been involved in every facet of Bush’s plans for the gulf operation.

“It is important to put some finite perspective” on the current standoff, the official said. “We’re not prepared to give this guy unlimited time.” With so much now at stake, he added, failure would be “pretty catastrophic.”

While some officials had suggested that war is likely, others in the Administration and in allied governments had stressed the possibility of an extended stalemate--one lasting well into next year and perhaps longer--during which the United States and its allies would wait to see if economic pressure would force Hussein to yield.

The decision to send massive new American forces to the gulf marks a rejection of the latter strategy. The Administration, officials made clear, is now set inexorably on a path that will lead to war unless Hussein backs out.

While economic sanctions have had some impact on Hussein, they have not reached “the point where he is seriously constrained,” said the official, who spoke on condition that he not be named. “Waiting two, three years to starve him out is not a good idea,” he said.

“It is still not crystal-clear that Saddam Hussein is taking us seriously,” the official said. “He’s still playing games--some of them with considerable skill--to divide the coalition.”

And at least until Thursday’s announcement of the expanded U.S. deployment, Hussein’s apparent belief that “time is on his side” might have been “rational,” the official said.

The U.S. force in the gulf, he noted, faces two major constraints. On the one side, Saudi Arabian officials cannot tolerate a huge U.S. presence in their country for as long as would be needed to “starve him out.” On the other, U.S. commanders cannot afford to keep huge forces in the gulf for an extended period.

“As weeks grow into months, you lose your edge, morale goes down,” he said.

Outside analysts have expressed similar sentiments. “The United States will either have to go to war early next year or face extremely difficult decisions,” said Marvin Feuerwerger of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The United States will not be able to maintain 400,000 troops in the Persian Gulf region for long without drastic measures,” such as resuming the draft, Feuerwerger said.

Administration officials essentially agree with that analysis. As a result, they deliberately have designed the second phase of the U.S. buildup to allow a military strike to be made quickly, before public support for Bush’s policy begins to erode seriously.

In Vietnam, the official added, the United States deployed troops without being able to say that “in the end, we’re going to be able to wrap this up.” This time, the Administration is determined to “make sure we can deliver whatever it is that is necessary.”

Until now, the official said, “no one” of the many foreign governments that have sent emissaries to Iraq “has come back with any sense that Saddam Hussein is wavering . . . that there is any hope.”

The decision to add more than 200,000 troops to the deployment was designed partly to get ready for war if Hussein refuses to withdraw from Kuwait and partly as a dramatic gesture “to affect (Hussein’s) thought processes . . . to convince him that we are serious.”

The events leading up to the decision began weeks ago with the realization that Iraq had deployed far more troops in Kuwait than U.S. military officials initially had foreseen.

U.S. planners originally had believed that an American force of about 230,000 troops would be adequate both to defend Saudi Arabia and to invade occupied Kuwait, if necessary. But after the deployment began, Hussein started sending in reinforcements, eventually doubling his forces to an estimated 430,000 troops on the ground.

“A force that is now adequate for defense, in late August was (believed to be) adequate for more than that,” the official said.

U.S. officials have retained the option of expanding the American force even more if necessary, but they do not believe that Iraq is capable of further escalation.

At the United Nations, meanwhile, the steering committee of the General Assembly rejected an attempt by Iraq to persuade the Assembly to debate the Administration’s expanded military buildup in the gulf.

Ten speakers objected to Iraq’s bid, and the 29-member committee eventually approved without taking a vote on a motion by the Canadian ambassador to take no action on the request by Hussein’s government.

In lobbying to add the new item to the General Assembly’s agenda, Iraq’s delegate, Adnan Mohammed, charged that the Bush Administration “blew the horns of war” and “was leading the world toward a catastrophe.”

But Saudi Arabia’s ambassador, Samir S. Shihabi, countered that Iraq’s motion was an “immoral act” and a “distortion of the facts.”

His view was seconded by U.S. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, who called the Iraqi requests “so improper, so ill-founded, so mendacious and so tendentious that it is simply impossible to recommend that the General Assembly deal with them.”

In the weeks ahead, U.S. diplomats are expected to push for U.N. Security Council approval of a new resolution that would provide standby authority to use military force if Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait continues.

Bush consistently has maintained that the U.N. Charter’s provisions for self-defense provide authority for U.S. forces to attack Iraq at the request of Kuwait’s government. But the Administration believes that approval of a more explicit U.N. resolution would help solidify the international coalition against Iraq.

Under the standard monthly rotation of the Security Council’s chairmanship, the United States heads the council this month. On Dec. 1, however, it will turn over the chairmanship to Yemen, which has mildly supported Iraq. As a result, U.S. diplomats hope to complete action on a new resolution this month.

The extent of support that American diplomats will be able to bring to an eventual vote is uncertain. Some Security Council members, including China, are cautious, preferring to give existing sanctions and private diplomacy a chance to work for several more months.

Times staff writer John J. Goldman, at the United Nations, contributed to this report.

RELATED STORIES: A6-A16