Lawmakers Back Bush--for Now : Congress: President risks trouble if war isn’t brief. But nearly unamimous support for troops is expected.

Four days after Congress’ agonizing vote to authorize President Bush to go to war with Iraq, lawmakers saw that legislative resolution translate into the harsh reality of combat; and they closed ranks--as they had promised--to offer their support for the U.S. military and its actions.

Where last week saw some of the most painful and emotional debate ever in the chambers of the House and Senate, “the major role of Congress now is to support,” said Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a staunch opponent of the resolution authorizing war.

“You’ll see Congress come together and offer virtually unanimous support for the troops and give them the resources that are necessary to keep the war as short as possible and the casualties at a minimum,” Boren predicted.

Certainly, such sentiments were not unanimous. Only a few hours before U.S. planes began bombing targets in Iraq and Kuwait, Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez (D-Tex.) had introduced a resolution aimed at impeaching Bush. Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-Berkeley) expressed outrage and called the decision to go to war “an inestimable tragedy.”

But it appears that Bush can count on a largely unified Congress to back him in the Persian Gulf--for the time being, at least.

Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), a key advocate of continuing to rely on sanctions instead of war, said in an ABC-TV interview from Indiana that he had been “very encouraged by the initial reports of action.” He said he had found that many constituents “desperately hope that the military action will be quick and decisive.”

He said, “I’m not happy that we’re in a war, but that debate is behind us now. It is necessary for Congress and the American people to stand behind the President and the troops.”

When asked how long the President could count on congressional support, Hamilton said that Congress had given Bush “authority to go to war, provided that he wins that war rather quickly.”

“It cannot be unnoticed that a large number voted against that. It is unusual to go into war with that many votes against it,” Hamilton cautioned. “If it is stretched out over a long period, there will be political difficulty sustaining political support . . . but initially the support will be very strong.”

Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) expressed hope for a pause in the hostilities that would give the Iraqis “an opportunity to reconsider the insanity which they have embarked upon.”

Berman and other lawmakers have noted that the stakes will increase dramatically if the battle moves from the air to the ground--where casualties would mount far more quickly.

Some lawmakers clearly see a personal score to be settled in the war. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Long Beach) said, “Saddam is getting exactly what he asked for. . . . I hope that we find out where Saddam Hussein is early on in the conflict, and, if we do, it will be a much shorter conflict. It’s clear our fight isn’t with the people of Iraq; it’s with this megalomaniac who has forced this fight upon us.”

Members of the Senate were summoned back to the Capitol today for a possible vote on a resolution endorsing the President’s action. Congressional leaders will meet with the President today and be briefed by Defense Secretary Dick Cheney on the results of the bombing raids against Iraq.

The atmosphere at the Capitol was somber and eerily quiet, as leaders of the Senate and House received word of the attack.

Bush was required under the resolution to notify House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) and Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), president pro tempore of the Senate. Foley was shopping for shirts at a downtown Washington Brooks Bros. store when he got an urgent message that the President was trying to reach him and wanted to be called on a secure telephone line.

Official word, an hour later, came in the form of a letter, which spelled out the measures that had been taken to avoid war. It concluded: “Diplomatic and economic pressures have not diminished Iraq’s intransigence despite 5 1/2 months of unparalleled international effort, and continued reliance upon them alone could risk achieving the basic objective of bringing about Iraq’s complete and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait.”

Party leaders and key committee chairmen, who in past international crises have complained about not being consulted before important decisions, also were briefed by members of the White House staff.

Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), who is being treated for cancer in his home state, refused to comment.

Staff writers Paul Houston, Robert A. Rosenblatt and Robert W. Stewart contributed to this report.