TWO IN A BOX

President Bush has put Saddam Hussein in a box. Mr. Bush is giving Saddam the Hobson’s choice of either admitting that he is amassing weapons of mass destruction or continuing his denials. Since he insists (without presenting proof) that the denials are false, either course is a cause for war.

But Mr. Bush seems to have put himself in a box, too. After disdaining the United Nations and signaling a go-it-alone policy, he sought a U.N. resolution supporting U.S. military action and approved sending U.N. inspectors back into Iraq. Now the president and his top aides are threatening war in the next few weeks. But to some the resolution seemed short of invasion authority. Several members of the U.N. Security Council want him to return to the council for specific approval of a U.S. invasion. And the inspectors want more time to search for proof that Saddam is violating his promise to disarm.

Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Bush’s foremost supporter on the council, wants a second resolution, although he says he would vote for it. Approval is by on means assured. France has suggested it might use its veto to prevent the U.N. Security Council from passing a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. It may have allies in Germany and Russia.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld hinted over the weekend at a possible way out of both boxes. He said he “would recommend that some provision be made so that the senior leadership in that country [Iraq] and their families could be provided haven to some other country.” He added: “And I think that would be a fair trade to avoid war.” Some such idea had been floated lately in Egypt and Turkey.

Such a notion is the longest of long shots, say most authorities. But it does suggest that the Bush administration might be willing to stand down from its preparations for a major war. Another long-shot possibility: Saddam might suddenly admit he had been cheating and agree to total disarmament under continuing inspection.

Whatever happens, is it conceivable that the U.S. government, after massing troops, aircraft carriers, tanks, guns, missiles and warplanes in preparation for imminent attack, suddenly shift course and bring them all home? In the 1960s, when the Vietnam War was in progress, with a half-million American service people involved, some critics asked that it be called off and the troops brought home. “How?” was the response. “In ships,” was the answer. It was too difficult for Washington to conceive until years later.

Weekend demonstrations in the capital and other American cities and through much of Europe showed deepening worries about the cost and length of war with Iraq, about its outcome and aftermath, and about whether it should be fought at all, especially without U.N. backing. If President Bush keeps pushing toward war, he needs at least to provide the evidence that has led him to call Saddam a threat that justifies military action. What he has presented to date is far less than what will satisfy many Americans and several of America’s allies.