President Clinton ordered 2,000 Marines to the Persian Gulf on Thursday and flatly rejected the notion that U.S. military strikes against Iraq would be aimed at killing President Saddam Hussein.

“Would the Iraqi people be better off if there were a change in leadership? I certainly think they would be,” Clinton said at an appearance with visiting British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

But Clinton, responding to calls from Capitol Hill and elsewhere for efforts to topple Hussein--with targeting him for death one alternative--stressed that U.S. law forbids political killings.

The dispatch of the Marines, who will arrive in the Gulf region in about a week, has several purposes, including deterring an Iraqi ground assault against neighboring countries during any conflict and providing search-and-rescue operations for any downed allied pilots.


On Capitol Hill, the Senate postponed action on a resolution of support for U.S. military action as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met behind closed doors to brief lawmakers who say they need more information about the growing crisis.

The flurry of rhetoric and diplomacy came as U.S. officials were increasingly pessimistic about the possibility of a peaceful solution to the standoff over Iraq’s refusal to allow unconditional U.N. weapons inspections.

On the first full day of his official visit, Blair emphasized that his government staunchly agrees with Clinton that a diplomatic solution to the showdown is preferable, but that “the threat of force is there and it is real.” Later, Blair’s official spokesman said that if diplomacy fails, there would be not “much doubt” that British forces would participate in an attack on Iraq.

Although it was obvious before Clinton and Blair’s talks that the U.S. and British positions toward Iraq were similar, senior White House officials said the meeting made it clear that the leaders see eye-to-eye on the problem, the need for forceful action and the objectives of the strategy.


This is important for Clinton, because if he makes what he called the “difficult decision” to use force against Iraq, he does not want to be seen as doing so on his own. Britain is an important ally in this effort because of its long Mideast ties and because it has forces in the Gulf and can collaborate in any military mission.

But other world leaders continued to oppose military action against Iraq.

France, which contributed troops for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, seemed to rule out playing any part in military hostilities against Hussein. Asked Thursday in a radio interview whether his country would assist U.S. military operations--via logistics, air support or allowing the flight of military jets over French territory--Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine said: “France does not have the intention of associating itself with that. And, for the moment, what France is doing is obtaining a solution through diplomatic means and by political persuasion. And I do not despair that we will succeed.”

French officials have expressed skepticism that military strikes could wipe out suspected Iraqi biological or chemical weapons stocks.


In a stronger expression of disapproval, Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin warned for the second day that military action by the United States in Iraq could trigger global warfare. “We have taken a firm stand: ‘No’ to settlement through the use of force. It is impossible. It would mean a world war,” Yeltsin said.

U.S. and British officials tried to downplay Yeltsin’s comments, underscoring instead that Clinton and Blair spoke with the Russian leader earlier this week and that he is united with them in the view that Hussein’s intransigence cannot be tolerated--even if Moscow disagrees about the use of force.

As for Yeltsin’s warnings of global warfare, Clinton’s spokesman said the administration has studied the goals and possible consequences of military action against Iraq and that “a world war is not among those objectives or outcomes foreseen.” A senior White House official also said that leaders do not take the Russian president’s words literally.

“People understand that Yeltsin is very colorful and tends to speak in emphatic language,” the senior U.S. official said. Talk of “world war,” he added, “is Yeltsin’s equivalent of a figure of speech. We don’t really view this as literal.”


But the official conceded that Yeltsin’s remarks are not helping the U.S. strategy, which is to force Hussein to comply out of a belief that the threat of military action against him is real and unavoidable.

As Clinton and Blair discussed possible use of force in Iraq, the U.S. aircraft carrier Independence sailed into the Gulf with 75 aircraft aboard and a battle group, which included a cruiser, a destroyer and a submarine. That carrier will replace the George Washington, expected to leave the region after about a week of overlap with the Independence.

With the Independence’s arrival, the U.S. military presence in the Gulf grew to about 30,000 service personnel, most of whom are based on carriers.

The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, an amphibious group, began heading for the Gulf from its station in the Mediterranean Sea. The Marine group, based in Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, includes an infantry battalion and six Cobra attack helicopters and is capable of conducting amphibious landings on short notice.


Analysts said the addition of the Marine unit makes sense--U.S. forces in the Gulf had been heavy on naval forces and aircraft and light on ground troops; the ground contingent consists of only 1,800 Army troops now. Adding the Marines will “help dispel any idea on Saddam’s part that he might be able to make a move on the ground” toward Kuwait, said Richard N. Haass, who was former President Bush’s top Middle East specialist during the Gulf War.

The Marines will also help if civilians or refugees need aid in the region; additionally, they can take part in search-and-rescue missions for downed pilots, analysts said.

Meanwhile, Albright’s classified briefing was provided to senators eager to have more information about administration preparations for a possible military strike in the Gulf and an assessment of the risk and benefits of such action. The Senate put off consideration of a nonbinding resolution backing airstrikes against Iraq until next week.

Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.) said the administration’s consultation with Congress was just one step in an education process that will be needed to win public support for any military action. “Everyone in Washington is aware this is a very grave situation,” he said after the Albright briefing. “But I don’t think the country has been able to absorb this. It’s important for the country to understand the gravity of the situation.”


Coverdell said he didn’t think Congress was ready to support military action when the week began but added: “By the end of the week, they will be.”.

He was among many senators who said they agreed with the president that trying to take out Hussein would be overreaching. “That is very difficult to accomplish,” he said.

Republican leaders have argued for an even more aggressive course than just airstrikes. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) have said U.S. policy should aim to remove Hussein from power.

Lott clarified his position Thursday, telling reporters that he does not advocate the illegal assassination of Hussein but a firm military action to lay the foundation for a successor. “The ultimate goal is to see a fundamental change in Iraq,” Lott said, stressing that he does not want a halfhearted U.S. strike that will have to be repeated in the years to come. “We ought to at least take an action that will fundamentally change the equation there.”


Times staff writers Janet Hook, Marc Lacey and Paul Richter contributed to this report, as did John-Thor Dahlburg in Paris and Carol J. Williams in Moscow.