RESULTS OF IRAQ CAMPAIGN RAISE CONCERNS FOR EXPERTS.

Byline: Richard Parker Knight Ridder Newspapers

For all its explosive power, the U.S. and British air campaign against Iraq was not a decisive blow against Saddam Hussein but a temporary setback for the Iraqi leader that is leading to a costlier, deeper and more dangerous American military role in the troubled Persian Gulf.

Senior Clinton administration officials detailed their claims of success in the attacks on Sunday, but independent experts gave a more sober assessment of this new era of the U.S.-Iraq confrontation, and Clinton aides agreed that controlling Saddam would be a long-term challenge.

Gen. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, displayed a satellite photo of the missile facility at Taji in central Iraq on ABC's ``This Week.'' He said it was ``out of business for a year or so.''

In all, Shelton said, nine missile research and development facilities had been targeted and destroyed.

``We have achieved the objectives of the strike,'' he said, saying Iraq's ability to turn short-range missile technology into long-range weapons striking across the Middle East has been delayed by a year.

But former officers and independent observers believe Operation Desert Fox produced only temporary stumbling blocks to Baghdad's ambitions to build missiles and chemical weapons - and none to building biological weapons. And they say the air assault is unlikely to have weakened the regime substantially.

``He (Saddam) is going to rebuild. It will certainly take a few years,'' said retired Army Gen. Binford Peay III, who commanded U.S. forces in the gulf until 1997 and authored the initial blueprint of the attack. ``With this, we're just buying some time.''

In response to such criticism, Defense Secretary William Cohen said Sunday: ``The sanctions are going to remain in place. We (U.S. forces) will remain in place. And so, if he tries to reconstitute that capability, we're prepared to take it down again.''

The open-ended commitment, however, will come at substantial cost.

At $750,000 apiece, the 320 ship-launched Tomahawks launched in Desert Fox cost nearly a quarter of a billion dollars; the 90 larger cruise missiles launched from B-52 bombers cost another $90 million.

Even before the attack, the cost of policing Iraq in 1998 was $2 billion, 20 times the cost of maintaining U.S. forces in the region the first year after the Gulf War.

And there is no end in sight.

Indefinite stay

The 5,600 soldiers and 51 combat aircraft now bound for the Persian Gulf are headed there for an indefinite stay, likely to be between a month and four months to guard against a possible Iraqi strike against Kuwait.

They will bolster the more than 30,000 sailors, Marines, airmen and soldiers already in the gulf along with 348 planes and attack helicopters.

About 20,000 U.S. troops are expected to remain as part of the regular presence in the region committed to destroying Iraq's future weapons efforts as they are rebuilt.

Beyond the actual expense of the deployment, maintaining significant capacity to strike Saddam will cause immeasurable wear and tear on U.S. military equipment and the morale of U.S. troops, Pentagon experts acknowledge.

For all of that, there's no guarantee that Saddam will ever go. ``Look at Fidel Castro,'' said a senior defense official who asked not to be identified.

And the continued projection of American forces in the Gulf is certain to make allies in the region and others around the world nervous about the habits and intentions of the last remaining superpower.

`No policy'

Russia has threatened to shelve nuclear arms reductions, while relations with moderate Arab states have been strained, noted Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

``The ripple effect is not very good,'' Goss added. ``Our troops brilliantly executed their orders. But I think that we've set ourselves back in almost every way we can. The one exception is that we've temporarily set him back on some capabilities.''

``There's no policy here,'' Goss complained. ``This is just flip-flop ad-hockery.''

Troubled by a lack of more potent political objectives, Goss said in an interview that he would convene hearings next month on Operation Desert Fox.

Asked Sunday about the uncertain outlook of U.S.-Iraq policy, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright acknowledged ``there is no silver bullet for dealing with Saddam Hussein, or this all would have been taken care of a long time ago.''

Despite all the problems associated with continuing to contain Saddam militarily, some defense analysts still see it as the best available course, given the Iraqi dictator's continued commitment to weapons of mass destruction.

``This kind of punishment is comparatively cheap for us, and it's not cheap for the Iraqis because of the sanctions,'' said retired Gen. Michael Dugan, the former Air Force chief of staff who oversaw preparations for the Gulf War. ``This is a holding action. . . . If you want to change the regime, you need to invade Iraq. And given that alternative, this is cheap.''