‘Last’ Chance for Iraq, Baker Says : Gulf crisis: The secretary will tell Hussein he must ‘get out of Kuwait--or risk all.’ Baghdad formally accepts high-level talks with Washington.

Secretary of State James A. Baker III, escalating the Bush Administration’s bellicose rhetoric against Iraq, told Congress on Wednesday that his forthcoming mission to Baghdad may represent “the last best chance” that President Saddam Hussein will get to avert war.

Arguing that the United States stands at a “defining moment in history” that will help shape the post-Cold War world, Baker asked Americans and Congress to unite behind the President and give credibility to the message that he said he will convey to the Iraqi leader: “Get out of Kuwait--or risk all.”

If Hussein fails to heed that message and war does break out, Baker said in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the United States and its allies will attack Iraq “suddenly, massively and decisively.” That, he said, will ensure that the “mistake” of gradual military escalation made in Vietnam will not be repeated in the Persian Gulf.

The hard line--”There can be no compromise”--that Baker took during the second week of congressional hearings on the Persian Gulf crisis came as the State Department announced that Baghdad has formally accepted President Bush’s offer for high-level talks.

State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said both sides are negotiating the dates and arrangements for a meeting between Baker and Hussein in Baghdad, and between President Bush and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tarik Aziz in Washington.

When Bush proposed the talks, he offered to send Baker to Baghdad after mid-December, well before the U.N. Security Council’s Jan. 15 deadline for Iraq to leave Kuwait.

In Baghdad, Hussein warned Wednesday that the United States should come to negotiate, not “like a policeman delivering an order.” He said such an approach would “mean they have used the talks merely as a cover so they can then persuade Congress they have tried their best.”

Baker, however, strongly reiterated Bush’s pledge that there will be no negotiations over the U.N. Security Council’s demands that Iraq unconditionally withdraw from Kuwait, accept the restoration of the deposed Kuwaiti government and release all foreign hostages.

“Let me be clear,” Baker declared. “This meeting will not be the beginning of a negotiation over the terms of the U.N. resolutions . . . nor is it the beginning of a negotiation on subjects unrelated to Iraq’s brutal occupation of Kuwait,” such as the Palestinian question or Lebanon.

“My mission,” he said, “will be to attempt to explain to Saddam the choice he faces: comply with the objectives of the Security Council or risk disaster for Iraq.”

To bolster the credibility of that ultimatum, Baker strongly echoed the pessimism that senior Administration officials from Bush on down have been voicing in recent days over whether economic sanctions will do enough damage to force Iraq into withdrawing from Kuwait.

“They haven’t worked . . . and I have to tell you I am personally very pessimistic that they will,” Baker said of the sanctions imposed soon after Iraq invaded Kuwait Aug. 2. “The past four months of experience,” he added, “is not particularly encouraging.”

That assertion was immediately challenged by several Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee.

They noted that all the experts testifying before various congressional committees over the last week--including several former secretaries of defense and two retired chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--share the view that the sanctions are working extremely well but need more time to take full effect.

“The embargo against Iraq is the most comprehensive in history. We have imposed a state of siege on that outlaw regime. . . . Yet, the Administration appears to have grown impatient with its own policy,” complained Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the committee’s second-ranking Democrat.

“We’ve gone off on a tangent that seems to reject sanctions . . . and that’s highly regrettable,” Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) added. “Anybody who will tell you these things are absolutely going to work doesn’t know what they’re talking about. But anyone who says they can’t work also doesn’t know what they’re talking about. You’ve got to give them a chance.”

That criticism was echoed in hearings of the House Armed Services Committee, where Democrats arguing for the efficacy of the economic embargo seemed to get additional ammunition Wednesday from an unexpected source--CIA Director William H. Webster.

Webster, who later briefed the committee in a closed-door session, said in his prepared remarks that the sanctions already have dealt Iraq a “serious blow” and will probably cripple its economy by next spring, depleting foreign exchange reserves and forcing most industries to shut down.

However, he bolstered the Administration’s view by saying: “We see no indication that . . . problems resulting from the sanctions are causing him (Hussein) to rethink his policy on Kuwait.”

But he also noted that Iraqi imports have been reduced to less than 10% of their pre-invasion level. He added that a 110-pound bag of sugar that cost $32 at the official exchange rate in August had risen to $580 last month.

“We estimate Iraq will have nearly depleted its available foreign exchange reserves by next spring. . . . Iraq’s economic problems will begin to multiply as Baghdad is forced to gradually shut down growing numbers of facilities,” Webster said.

However, while the CIA chief sounded more optimistic about the long-term effectiveness of the embargo than either Baker or Defense Secretary Dick Cheney have been, he said that it will probably take another nine months before Iraq’s military readiness is seriously impaired by the sanctions.

He added, as other officials have done in recent days, that there is “no assurance . . . economic hardships will compel Saddam to change his policies or lead to internal unrest that would threaten his regime.”

Arguing that point more forcefully, Baker told the senators that, although sanctions are being enforced “extraordinarily well,” the “available evidence suggests that they have had little if any effect on (Hussein’s) inclination to withdraw” from Kuwait.

Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) urged Congress to avoid “a cacophony of carping criticism and second-guessing” at a time when U.S. forces face “a situation fraught with danger.” But Democrats on the committee received Baker’s remarks with a mixture of skepticism and alarm.

Biden and other Democrats noted that Congress and the nation were united in their support for Bush until Nov. 8, when he announced that he was giving U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf an offensive capability by nearly doubling their numbers to more than 400,000. That unity, Biden said, will be destroyed if Bush “plunges this nation into war when the case for war has not been made.”

“I cannot say to a family that loses a son or daughter in a conflict that may well take place in the next 60 to 90 days that we exhausted every possibility for a peaceful resolution, because the sanctions option has not been exhausted,” Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.) added.

Glowering at Baker as his voice rose with emotion, Sarbanes declared: “You have placed us on a course to war.”

Questioning what Baker hopes to accomplish in Baghdad if he is “going basically to give a speech,” Dodd said many lawmakers suspect Baker’s diplomatic mission is aimed more at quelling domestic criticism--laying the groundwork for war rather than averting it.

Responding with some emotion of his own, Baker said that he had left “no stone unturned in the search for a peaceful solution.

“Put bluntly, this is the last best chance for a peaceful solution. If we are to have any chance of success, I must go to Baghdad with the fullest support of the Congress and American people behind the message of the international community.

“We are talking about sending a unified message,” he added, “. . . one that doesn’t contain discordant notes . . . a message that the threat of force is real.”