WASHINGTON - Many U.S. academics who oppose an invasion of Iraq now believe the chances of avoiding war are slim and shrinking and expect President Bush to override or ignore all remaining obstacles.

"War is not inevitable but it's become very likely. The determination shown by President Bush and his advisers to deal with Iraq has been stunning. It's been an impressive political feat and an impressive use of power," said Robert Powell, a professor of international relations at the University of California, Berkeley.

Last summer, Powell was one of 33 prominent U.S. academics to sign a statement that ran as an advertisement in the New York Times arguing against an invasion of Iraq.

The professors argued then that the Bush administration should pursue a policy of containment against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein while focusing its main efforts on fighting the al Qaeda organization of Osama bin Laden.

They also warned that the United States might find itself occupying Iraq for years to come which would spread instability in the Middle East and create new threats to U.S. interests.

Interviewed this week, several said they still believed that and were worried by the precedent that an invasion of Iraq would set and by the fact that Bush was apparently willing to attack with or without specific authorization from the United Nations Security Council. But they were unanimous in saying that war had now become almost inevitable.

Though France and Germany continue to oppose an attack, other European countries have begun lining up behind Bush, despite the fact that international public opinion is running heavily against war in almost every country in the world.

"When push comes to shove, most nations will find reasons not to cross the United States and at this point it would be a tremendous embarrassment to Bush to step back," said Richard Betts, a political scientist at Columbia University.

"When America makes it clear it is not going to be stopped, most other countries tend to go along. The big question is whether key nations like France, Russia and China with Security Council vetoes will stand aside or get on board," he said.

Even U.S. public opinion is far from enthusiastically behind Bush, who says Iraq must be disarmed because its alleged illegal arms programs pose a threat to the United States and its allies. Polls have repeatedly shown a majority strongly favors going to war only with U.N. authorization and at the head of a wide international coalition.

RALLY BEHIND TROOPS

The president appears to be banking on the fact that once the fighting starts, the nation will rally behind its fighting men and women and if the war goes well, previous misgivings will become irrelevant.

"The Democrats, who are the organized political opposition in this country, have been scared to step forward and lead an anti-war movement even though public opinion has been divided and there is considerable anti-war feeling in the country," said Jack Levy who teaches international relations at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

Secretary of State Colin Powell is going to unveil new information next week to the Security Council that purports to back up Washington's argument that Iraq is continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction. That could prompt more nations to get on the bandwagon.

"The Bush administration is beginning to put real pressure on key nations like France, which may be the decisive voice in determining if there is a real international coalition or just a paper coalition behind Bush," said Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago.

"If the French come on board, war is a certainty. But if they are not convinced by Powell's evidence, they may not be moved," he said.

Phyllis Bennis of the Institute of Policy Studies, a liberal Washington think-tank which has opposed an invasion of Iraq, said the United States was approaching France and other key nations with a mixture of bribes and veiled threats.

For example, if war comes and Saddam is deposed, billions of dollars of contracts could soon become available for reconstruction projects in Iraq. Countries which opposed the fighting might find themselves cut out of the action.

Bennis said Bush's statement on Thursday that he was willing to consider exile for Saddam suggested he might still be looking for a way to declare victory without fighting.

But she too conceded, "It's hard to believe that there won't be a war."

Copyright 2003 Reuters Ltd

###