WASHINGTON -- President Bush and his aides are scrambling to cool what they deride as a "frenzy" over the prospect of war with Iraq, with signals that military action, if it comes, may be a long way off.
"The president hasn't committed to military action yet," a White House official said Thursday. "We don't have a plan yet. The debate presumes that we're ready to launch coordinated action against Iraq, but we're not."
"We would be the first to say that we need to talk more about this," another official said. "There will be more consultation and more debate before any action is taken."
On Wednesday, Bush dismissed "this kind of intense speculation" over his intentions on Iraq, and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld called it "a frenzy."
But their efforts to calm the debate came only after months of declarations that the Bush administration is committed to overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and is willing to do so by force if needed.
Bush has frequently warned that Hussein will use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons unless the United States acts first.
"America must act against these terrible threats before they're fully formed," Bush said last month. "We will use diplomacy when possible, and force when necessary."
But having made the threats, Bush appears to have lost control of the debate that followed.
In recent weeks, the White House's statements on Iraq have drawn protests from U.S. allies, including Germany and Canada, and appeals for caution from such foreign policy experts as former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft.
"The administration has allowed its rhetoric to get ahead of events," said a former aide to a Republican White House who asked not to be identified. "They need to convey a sense that they have thought this policy through carefully. They haven't done that yet."
In their defense, Bush aides say they believed that strong language was necessary to draw world attention to the threat they see in Iraq, and to convince other countries that the United States is serious about seeking regime change.
"No one wants to ... be associated with an effort that may be difficult if it appears that the leader of that effort is uncertain," a senior official explained.
But if people got the impression that the administration was close to launching "preemptive action" against Iraq—a phrase the president used in June—that was a misunderstanding, the officials said.
Instead, they said, Bush will probably take time this fall to settle on a plan of action against Iraq and to persuade Congress and U.S. allies to support the effort.
"The overall case for seeking a change in the regime has now been made," one official said. "The next step is winning support for a plan of action. That case hasn't been made because there's no plan yet.
"This is a democracy. You need to explain what you're going to do," he added. "When the president decides what he wants to do, we'll explain it fully, and nobody will be surprised."
He refused to say how long the next stages might take. But he emphasized that Bush has not yet decided how he plans to overthrow Hussein.
Officials have said the president's options include stepped-up diplomatic and economic pressure; covert intelligence operations; and at least three different scenarios for military action, ranging from an Afghanistan-style campaign using only 70,000 troops to a full-scale invasion of more than 250,000.
"He could decide to use more than one of those methods," the official noted.
Once Bush settles on a plan, he will seek public and allied support, "and that will take time," the official said.
Bush has not yet sought public backing from most U.S. allies because he does not think he can get it without a plan in his hand, the official added.
"When you're dealing with reluctant allies who are opposed to anything that strikes them as risky, they'll try to talk you out of it or get you to delay," he said. "But if you go to them with a plan and say, 'We've made up our minds, and are you with us or not?' it changes the equation."
Still, the official said, Bush has already consulted widely with members of Congress and other governments, and will continue to do so in the months to come.
Among other meetings, he said, the president is scheduled to attend a gathering of Pacific Rim leaders in Mexico in October and a summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the Czech Republic in November.
Officials said Bush is not likely to seek the approval of the United Nations Security Council for his plans on Iraq, partly because of fears that Russia or China would veto any resolution. Instead, the United States may merely try to assemble an informal coalition in support of whatever action it takes, they said.
And, officials said, they expect a more extensive debate in Congress as the time for action nears. Last month, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the issue, the administration declined to provide any officials to explain its policy, saying it was too early.
"The president believes it's constructive to have a national discussion about Iraq," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Thursday. "There are important voices to be heard on all sides ... and the president will continue to listen to thoughtful cases from all people. He thinks it's good for the country, it's good for the world, it's good for Saddam."
Still, Fleischer complained, the portrayal of the debate in the news media had gone overboard, climaxing in headlines this week about Rumsfeld's meeting with Bush at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, that marveled that the session did not focus on Iraq.
"The press yesterday and the day before yesterday reached an absurd point of self-inflicted silliness," he said. "There have been meetings about Iraq in the past. There will be meetings about Iraq in the future. Yesterday's meeting was not about Iraq."
Copyright © 2002, The Los Angeles Times
