THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT 
              Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: Tuesday, September 17, 1996           TAG: 9609170008
SECTION: FINAL                   PAGE: A14  EDITION: FINAL 
TYPE: Editorial 
                                            LENGTH:   56 lines

IRAQ POLICY SEEMS UNCLEAR AND AD HOC TIME FOR PLAIN SPEAKING

In its confrontation with Saddam Hussein, the Clinton administration is taking a pounding. Not from the Iraqis but from domestic critics - Republican and Democratic alike. There's some election-season partisanship at work, but some of the criticism is deserved.

The administration could have muted complaints by consulting with Congress before the strikes against Saddam and on a regular basis since. The War Powers Act, tradition and expediency all argue for getting Congress inside the tent.

The administration suffered a new embarrassment over the weekend when the Kuwaitis reacted with surprise and without enthusiasm to the news that the U.S. planned to base several thousand troops on their soil.

Defense Secretary William Perry has now apparently smoothed over the matter and has won basing rights in Bahrain as well, but the impression was left of ``terrible disarray,'' in the words of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. ``The credibility of the United States is at stake.''

McCain is a key supporter of presidential candidate Bob Dole, so his views have to be taken with a grain of salt. But Democrats have been critical too.

Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., has worried about the ad hoc nature of the administration's responses. ``We're having to react to every tactical move that Saddam makes,'' Nunn said. ``We need to start looking at a long-term policy.''

In fact, that's long overdue. Both the Bush and Clinton administrations have assumed - or hoped - that it was only a matter of time until the defeated Saddam toppled. But loss in battle, painful economic sanctions, hostile Kurdish and Shiite minorities and the enmity of neighboring Iran have failed to bring him down.

Nunn would encourage the Gulf states, Egypt and Jordan to form a front-line defense and turn the United States into an emergency back up, but he may be engaging in wishful thinking. Regional powers might be able to cordon off Iraq, but only the United States possesses the air power needed to enforce a no-fly zone.

It should be recalled that Nunn was both dovish and wrong when it came to the Gulf War, but he's right in calling for greater clarity. He's seconded by House speaker Newt Gingrich who said Sunday that members of Congress ``have no idea what the president is trying to accomplish.''

In fact, there's general agreement on the goal of keeping Saddam caged, but substantial disagreement on ways and means. Some, like Nunn, want to turn most of the responsibility over to a regional coalition. At the other extreme are those who advocate strikes against Baghdad, Saddam's Republican Guard and his armor. In between are those who believe a no-drive zone for tanks should be added to the no-fly zone.

The Clinton administration should clear up the confusion by briefing Congress and allies and by articulating a policy that the American people can understand. What are our long-range goals? What are we prepared to do to reach them?

KEYWORDS: IRAQ INVASION by CNB