By Bradley Graham and John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 29, 1998; Page A10

Senior administration officials have begun considering whether to reduce U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf, but remain undecided as they weigh conflicting concerns about keeping the pressure on Iraq while relieving the strain on Pentagon operations and budgets.

Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said yesterday that President Clinton was expected to make a decision on the size of the U.S. troop presence within "the next couple of weeks." Other officials reported that the subject had been taken up by the president's national security team at meetings last week and yesterday, with no resolution.

U.S. forces in the gulf have remained at peak levels of about 36,000 troops since February, when Iraq averted the threat of American air strikes and renewed a commitment to unrestricted access by United Nations weapons inspectors. Although Iraq has made good on its promise to let inspectors into presidential sites previously closed to them, U.N. authorities continue to fault Baghdad for failing to provide sufficient information about its weapons production efforts.

The U.N. Security Council decided on Monday to leave sanctions in place against Iraq based on a report from U.N. arms inspectors that it still had not complied with resolutions following the 1991 Persian Gulf War that required the scrapping of all its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs. Under such circumstances, U.S. officials worry that a troop withdrawal now might be interpreted as a sign of flagging U.S. concern.

An administration official close to White House deliberations said senior policymaking officials are wary of shrinking the gulf force within the next several weeks. Clinton and senior national security aides want more time to gauge Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's reaction to the recently completed sanctions review.

"It's not a great time to do it," said this official.

But Bacon noted that the conditions in the gulf had become "somewhat less threatening than they were several months ago," when the United States rushed extra forces to the gulf in anticipation of a showdown over the weapons inspections.

"So the language is less bellicose, less threatening, and [Saddam Hussein's] actions have been more receptive to U.N. Special Commission inspectors," Bacon said. "Those are two things that have changed."

The gulf buildup has stretched U.S. national security commitments elsewhere and confronted the Defense Department with extra costs, estimated at $1.36 billion through September, when the fiscal year ends. The surge in forces has involved nearly 400 combat aircraft, 29 ships and roughly double the number of sailors, soldiers, Marines and airmen that the United States had been maintaining in the region. It has created gaps, most notably in the absence of aircraft carriers and other military assets in two critical foreign theaters -- the western Pacific and the Mediterranean Sea.

Defense officials said Gen. Anthony Zinni, the four-star Marine Corps officer who oversees U.S. forces in the gulf, briefed Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and the military service chiefs about two weeks ago on options for reducing the American military presence.

"The big piece is what to do about the carriers there -- whether to go from two to one," said a military source familiar with the briefing. Zinni's options also included cuts in land-based aircraft and ground troops.

But even the most sizable reduction on Zinni's list, the source said, would leave a force in the gulf considerably greater than what existed before the rise in tensions with Iraq last autumn. And Bacon stressed yesterday that any cut in forces could be quickly reversed should Iraqi actions present a new threat.

The administration's discussions over force size have been part of a broader high-level review of Iraq strategy, officials said. The thrust of the conversations has been how to de-escalate the crisis and reduce expectations that any violation by Iraq of the inspections regime must be met by the threat of military force -- an approach not favored by most U.S. allies, especially in the Arab world.

The gradually emerging strategy would instead emphasize containment -- the threat of disproportionate force if Iraq uses weapons of mass destruction -- coupled with public warnings to Iraq that sanctions will never be lifted until it demonstrates sustained compliance with weapons inspectors, officials said.