Hussein

So our President was unhappy with Gorbachev's peace proposal! The Times' article had a revealing comment that Gorbachev "had done more harm to himself (in Washington) in the past 72 hours than he did by all the head-knocking in the Baltics" (Feb. 21). Does Washington really get more upset by peace-making than by "head-knocking"? This gives us an insight into why Washington ignored all the "head-knocking" done by Hussein during the last 10 years or so when we were providing him with military assistance.

I have been told that we didn't fight the Gulf War because Kuwait had oil or because Saudi Arabia could afford to pay us. We did it to stop aggression and to prevent Hussein from committing acts of brutality. But how I wish that the Kurds controlled oil wells and were rich and had lots of money. Then we could have come to their aid and then told the world anew that we didn't do it for oil or money but for justice and righteousness and to prevent Hussein and future Husseins from thinking that they can get away with acts of brutality.

I believe the vast majority of Americans will agree with your recommendation to our President that he call a 48-hour pause in the attack to give diplomacy one last chance to induce Iraq to get out of Kuwait. It would be a true measure of President Bush's strength if he does this. Unfortunately, the people of Iraq will not be consulted about their response. All indications are that Hussein exerts absolute authority in Iraq and though he may listen to advisers, he alone can make a decision to withdraw.

There was indeed a war crime committed in the events surrounding the deaths of 500 Iraqi civilians residing in a Baghdad "bomb shelter." The criminal is Hussein who used the innocents as "human armor" in an attempt to shield his war-making capacity from the allied attacks. The blood is on his hands alone. ROBERT J. DURIO Hawthorne

Your editorial ("Bush Sends a Clear Signal to Baghdad," Dec. 1) posed the question as to how Hussein can "negotiate a face-saving retreat from Kuwait and avoid war." This is an equally vexing question for the Bush Administration, which, like Hussein, has painted itself in a corner by insisting on complete withdrawal before negotiations can begin. What may be a face-saving retreat for both sides is this: Hussein withdraws all his troops from Kuwait and allows the restoration of the Kuwait government, as the U.N. resolutions demand.

Until recently, I have thought that the political posturing, breast-beating, and histrionics by certain members of Congress and by some committee witnesses over the possibility of war in the Middle East were entirely detrimental to the President's efforts to force Hussein out of Kuwait. It has occurred to me, however, that Machiavelli could not have devised a better scenario to convince Iraq that the United States is serious about the use of force, if necessary, to protect its own and other nations' interests in the gulf area.

Finally truth has peeked out on the front page of The Times! I refer to "Iraq Releases Briton Held in Bribe Case" (by Nick B. Williams Jr., Nov. 24). He writes that the Western and Middle East powers that drove the Iraqi army out of Kuwait are "pursuing a difficult strategy designed to ease Hussein out of power without disintegrating the Iraqi state. "Key to the policy is denying the Iraqi leader unrestricted access to revenues raised by the potential sale of oil. The problem is that without money, Hussein's regime is unable to feed the 17 million Iraqis.

Although I agree that America needs a clearer "why" before it goes to war, I do not believe the analogy with Hitler and Nazi Germany should be ridiculed. But it should be made clearer. Iraq's Baath Party is secular, socialist and aggressively Pan-Arab. Nazism was Pan-German but otherwise similar. Iraq's sizable population, coupled with its relatively superior economic and technological base, makes that country's war potential the greatest in the region. Like Germany under Hitler, Iraq today is on the threshold of a nuclear breakthrough.

Does anyone still think that we are continuing to move armed forces to the borders of Iraq to prevent its invasion of Saudi Arabia? I think that soon we will move our forces into Kuwait and Iraq to achieve a military victory over Hussein. How long and costly this will be depends upon the amount of force, perhaps nuclear, we will use. It could be gruesome beyond imagination. Is is too late to stop? GARY LIPTON North Hollywood

The President is free, of course, to make or break any promise he wishes to in the interests of his political position in 1992. There is one commitment he has made, however, which he cannot break. That is his oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." We may have deteriorated to the point where we will abandon the Constitution in favor of a powerful executive deciding our fate by force. If we have not, we will insist that not one person or one ounce of equipment will be sent against Hussein unless Congress first declares war on Iraq.