Congress Signals Its Backing of Land War : Capitol Hill: Lawmakers, including Democrats, appear willing to defer to the President and his generals on launching ground action.

WASHINGTON —  In a significantly more hawkish mood, many members of Congress seemed ready Wednesday to support a land war in the Persian Gulf after urging for weeks that the bombing campaign be continued as long as possible to save the lives of allied ground troops.

Democrats, from House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) on down, expressed a strikingly similar view: They are willing to defer to military leaders and President Bush on what appears to be an imminent decision to commence extensive ground action.

“This decision has to be made by the commander in chief and his military advisers, and I think so far they have done a magnificent job. The responsibility is with them,” said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.).

“I think most members (of the House) have reluctantly concluded that a ground war is inevitable,” Rep. Jim Slattery (D-Kan.) said after Pentagon officials explained at a closed briefing how troops would breach minefields and other defenses in a ground operation.

California Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), the third-ranking Republican leader in the House, said many Republicans still hope that a sizable land war can be avoided. But they are increasingly willing to back a ground offensive, he said, citing two key reasons: a growing number of constituents support it, and military briefers have argued persuasively that it would be a low-cost mopping-up operation.

“The briefers have carefully delivered the message that a ground war does not necessarily mean lots of lives lost--it may be technologically every bit as surprisingly effective as the fantastic air effort,” Lewis said.

The shift in congressional sentiment is particularly significant for many Democrats who were on the losing end of a vote in January to rely on economic sanctions to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, instead of authorizing Bush to wage war.

California Rep. Julian C. Dixon (D-Los Angeles), a member of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, candidly admitted that in hindsight, he was wrong about putting faith in the effectiveness of sanctions.

“Sanctions may have worked, but when?” Dixon said in an interview in the ornate Speaker’s Lobby off the House floor. “We’re bombing the hell out of him (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein), and he’s not budging. I can see that sanctions might have worked in five years but certainly not in five months.”

Like many Democrats, Dixon said his position on whether to move to a ground war is “very practical.”

“I’m not in the Gulf,” he said. “I’m not a military expert. I opposed Bush’s exercise of war authority. But now we have to get it over with as expeditiously and efficiently as possible. What the hell do we in Congress know about the decision to move on the ground? I support the decision by the President and Gen. (H. Norman) Schwarzkopf on that. To prolong the war may give an advantage that the Iraqis don’t have. Gen. Schwarzkopf and the President may have to seize the opportunity to move now.”

At his daily session with reporters, Foley said the question of when to begin a ground war is “a matter for the President as commander in chief. Obviously, I think there is a view that as long as the air war can weaken Iraqi forces to the degree that it lowers the risk of casualty or loss on our side, it would seem desirable to do that. But that is a determination, again, the President has to make.”

Sen. Albert Gore Jr. (D-Tenn.) said that Bush, Schwarzkopf, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and Gen. Colin L. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all “have earned the credibility and confidence which ought to be placed in their ability to look at military decisions of this kind.”

Gore, a Senate Armed Services Committee member who voted to authorize war, said the decision to send Cheney and Powell to the Gulf earlier this month to explore the advisability of a ground war was “a wise move.”

“I am personally satisfied there is not some irrational pressure driving us toward premature ground action,” he said. “I think they are fully aware of all the risks and uncertainties on both sides of the question.”

Rep. David E. Bonior (D-Mich.), a Democratic leader and prominent dove on the war, said he is “not at all enthused about escalating the war at all,” but in a change of tone from a week ago, added: “But, of course, I’m not privy to all the information the generals are.”

He said he sensed that most Democratic colleagues are willing to go along with Bush’s decision on a ground attack “because the war effort is being portrayed as very successful so far.”

To be sure, some who have strongly urged sticking with the bombing campaign--and staying away from a ground war for now--have not changed their minds. The most prominent is Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.).

Staff writer William J. Eaton contributed to this report.