Clinton Takes Hard Line in Case for Strike on Iraq

President Clinton laid out a detailed case Tuesday for prospective American military action against Iraq, saying “I guarantee you” that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein will unleash an arsenal of destruction someday if not stopped now.

In a careful presentation aimed at the American public as well as reluctant allies overseas, Clinton also warned that failure to deal effectively with Hussein would only embolden tyrants and terrorists in the future.

A peaceful solution that would allow unrestricted United Nations weapons inspections “is by far our preference,” Clinton said in a speech to Pentagon officials after a briefing by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But he made clear that any deal would have to meet standards that have been unacceptable to Iraq so far: “Iraq must agree--and soon--to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country.”

Hours later, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he will go to Baghdad later this week for what may be the last try for a diplomatic solution. Annan made his announcement after meeting with U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Bill Richardson and envoys from the four other permanent members of the Security Council--Britain, France, Russia and China. The five did not issue any written guidelines to him but offered what they called spoken “advice.”

While this implied that Annan might have more leeway in any negotiations with Hussein than the United States intended, Richardson told reporters: “The United States is supportive of his trip. We wish him well. But we reserve the right to disagree if his conclusions are not in conformity with U.N. resolutions and our national interest.”

The president’s speech came as the White House intensified its bid to prepare the public for military action against Iraq, which could lead to grim broadcast images of Iraqi civilian casualties and captured U.S. pilots. Lamenting that he may have to place U.S. troops “in harm’s way,” Clinton said the military is ready for the risk and “the American people have to be ready as well.”

Striving to bring the threat home on another level, Clinton warned that Hussein personifies the modern threat to nations in the post-Cold War era, when terrorists, drug traffickers and organized criminals make up an “unholy axis” that can use weapons of mass destruction.

“If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity,” the president said.

He also directed remarks at nations that joined in the Persian Gulf War coalition seven years ago but have not this time. Depicting Hussein as the embodiment of a 21st century “predator,” Clinton argued that the impasse has grave long-term consequences. What would it mean, he asked aloud, if Hussein were allowed to ignore “the solemn commitments that he made” and continue to thwart U.N. weapons inspectors?

“He will conclude that the international community has lost its will,” Clinton said. “He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”

Clinton emphasized that Hussein had broken a promise, made under terms of the Gulf War cease-fire, to provide a complete accounting of his nation’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons within 15 days. “That’s what he promised to do.”

*

As for what happens after any campaign of allied airstrikes, Clinton said the United States would continue to monitor Iraq’s weapons programs and would strike again any time Hussein tried to rebuild his arsenal.

In a response to Clinton’s speech, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tarik Aziz said in a Cable News Network interview that the United States has no authority to attack Iraq. He said none of Iraq’s neighbors favors an attack, while countries as far away as New Zealand, Australia and Britain are jumping to help America. “It is not a coalition for peace. It is a belligerent coalition to destroy a nation,” Aziz said.

The Clinton administration’s next step to prepare the nation for conflict comes today when the president’s three top foreign affairs advisors field questions from the public at an internationally televised “town meeting” at Ohio State University in Columbus. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and National Security Advisor Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger will make statements and field questions from a studio audience and viewers.

Public opinion polls have shown most Americans favor airstrikes if Hussein fails to comply with U.N. resolutions requiring open, unfettered inspection of sites believed used to produce weapons of mass destruction. But the surveys also suggest misgivings. A Gallup Poll conducted earlier this week for CNN/USA Today found that only 45% supported military action if the United States was forced to go it alone; the survey also suggested public discomfort with Iraqi civilian casualties. If many civilians were to be killed, Americans were virtually split on removing Hussein, with 47% in favor and 45% opposed.

This unease was underscored Tuesday by Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), who released a statement raising concerns about a military strike, including the possibility of wide contamination if biological weapons sites are bombed. “I am not prepared to explain to the American parents and families the loss of fliers over Iraq,” said Rangel, who urged the White House to give diplomatic efforts more of a chance.

*

The administration is clearly struggling to keep remnants of the 1991 Gulf War coalition together as moderate Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and perhaps Bahrain, limit use of their territory for possible U.S. military operations against Iraq. Even within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance, other than the U.S., only Britain is ready to participate directly in airstrikes against Iraq.

The diminished nature of this support, coupled with the potential negative consequences of military action, appears to be the principal motivation for continuing to pursue diplomacy even at this late hour.

Clinton talked with Annan on Tuesday morning about the delicate negotiations in the Security Council. In earlier statements, the United States had made it clear that it did not want the U.N. secretary-general to go to Baghdad unless it was agreed that he would hew to two principles: Iraq must comply with all council resolutions demanding that inspectors can search anywhere they want in their quest for weapons of mass destruction; Iraq has no right to push aside the U.N. Special Commission, which has been sending teams of inspectors to Iraq since the end of the Gulf War.

*

Among the permanent five, Britain has supported this position. But France, Russia and China wanted to give Annan more leeway. The device of offering him advice Tuesday but no written mandate appeared to satisfy all.

Russia and China issued a statement strongly rejecting use of force, saying they “favor a political solution to the crisis which would ensure Iraq carries out in full the relevant decisions of the council.”

France, which has ruled out taking part in military action against Iraq and is the leading critic of the administration among NATO allies, said diplomats can still find a way out of the standoff, though time is running out.

At the Pentagon on Tuesday, preparations continued to send 5,000 to 6,000 more troops to Kuwait to help reduce the risk of an Iraqi attack. About 2,500 to 3,000 of these troops were requested last week to round out to a full brigade the Army troops that have been conducting exercises in Kuwait.

The other troops include an Apache attack helicopter battalion with about 24 AH-64 helicopters, about 12 OH-58D observation helicopters, a mechanized infantry unit and an artillery unit equipped with advanced multiple rocket launchers. These troops are intended to help give U.S. forces better mobility and longer reach should a ground battle begin.

All the troops are coming from the 3rd Infantry Division, based at Ft. Stewart, Ga.

The addition of these troops will bring to about 10,000 the total number of U.S. ground troops in the region. Officials have said the force is designed to help discourage Hussein from mounting a counterattack on Kuwait if the United States launches airstrikes. Even so, the numbers are far less than the hundreds of thousands that would be needed for any ground campaign against the Iraqi leader.

Times staff writers John-Thor Dahlburg in Paris, Stanley Meisler and Craig Turner at the United Nations and Edwin Chen, Tyler Marshall, Doyle McManus, Paul Richter and Robin Wright in Washington contributed to this report.