WASHINGTON: As the debate intensifies about the merits of American military action to topple Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration is purposely refraining from making a detailed case for such a campaign until war is imminent.

President Bush and his aides mention almost daily that Saddam is a menace who must go, and few observers doubt Bush’s determination to use American forces to oust him. But administration officials said that because they haven’t formally elected military action against the Iraqi dictator, it would be premature and politically dangerous to lay out a lengthy justification for an American military strike — particularly without a war plan in place to back up the talk.

“Timing is everything when you do this,” said Richard Perle, a former Reagan defence official who is close to key figures in the Bush administration.

The hesitancy of the administration to argue aggressively for the American military option has had the effect of ceding the public debate to opponents of an attack on Iraq. Foreign policy strategists — even those who favour an attack — say the Bush administration’s reluctance to make a forceful and specific argument for an American strike is undermining support for such an action.

In the United States, a few influential conservatives such as Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R- Texas, and Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to the first President Bush, have begun to raise doubts about an attack.

The latest caution came on Friday from retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who wrote in the new issue of the Washington Monthly that it’s a “fundamental misjudgment” to pursue the counter-terrorism war, including efforts against Saddam, without NATO.

Sentiment in Europe against military action has hardened, and would-be supporters of the Bush administration such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair are finding growing opposition in their governments from officials who say the United States has not made a sufficient case for action. A poll last week in London’s Daily Telegraph found that only 28 per cent of the British thought the Americans would be justified in attacking Iraq, and 58 per cent said an attack was unjustified.

American public opinion, though still strongly in favour of action against Saddam, is showing some fractures. In a Washington Post/ABC News poll last week, 69 per cent supported military action against Iraq to oust the dictator, down from 78 per cent in November but consistent with levels from earlier this year. If the allies opposed the American action against Iraq, only 54 per cent said they’d still approve of the action. And if the action involved ground troops and resulted in significant American casualties, a majority of 51 per cent would oppose the action.

In another indication that the administration hasn’t made its case firmly, a full 79 per cent said that Iraq is a threat to the United States, but only 45 per cent thought Bush has a “clear policy” on Iraq.

In an interview with BBC radio on Thursday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice argued that “we certainly do not have the option of doing nothing” against Saddam, and listed his endeavours in chemical and nuclear terrorism and his defiance of the United Nations. Yet Rice began her remarks by noting that “the president hasn’t decided how he wants to do it or how he intends to make the case for particular methods.”

Bush aides say that’s preferable to the alternative: preparing the public for an attack that’s not imminent. But that strategy has the side effect of leaving foes unchallenged, potentially undermining support for an American strike.

“The lesson we learned in Vietnam and other places is you need to start making the case why we are doing this and why it is important, and none of this has been done,” said Ivo Daalder, a former Clinton administration national security official now with the Brookings Institution. “They’re ceding the ground to the people who are against it, particularly in Europe.”

Even some of those sympathetic to the administration’s view say more must be done. “They need to be more active in persuading European public opinion and they haven’t done much of that,” said Helle Dale, a foreign policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. She recommended highly visible trips by American officials to argue the case in Europe.

Though the administration faces two distinct audiences _ European allies and the American public — they’re closely linked. As the Post poll indicated, Americans, still afflicted by Vietnam War insecurities, grow increasingly skittish about American military operations if they aren’t supported by allies.

Advocates of quick action against Saddam say Bush will get automatic support and opponents will retreat when he moves against Iraq.

Administration officials say their hands are tied for now because Bush hasn’t committed, at least publicly, to an attack. “The president has not taken any step with regard to military action, so it’s premature to talk about the so-called public case against Iraq,” a senior Bush aide said.

Officials say there is no formal planning for such a public campaign. But the administration is assembling the infrastructure for such an effort. The White House plans to create a permanent unit devoted to delivering the American point of view abroad as it did during the military action in Afghanistan.

The relative quiet of the Bush administration, while delighting opponents of military action, disturbs some hardliners who favour action against Iraq. “There’s been no serious effort to build the case in Europe,” said Robert Kagan, a Brussels-based analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The truth is, if they made a serious effort here, they could have some success.”—Dawn/The Washington Post News Service.