Jentleson, who was involved in Middle East arms control and regional security negotiations in the mid-1990s while serving on the U.S. State Department policy planning staff, said the Bush administration has not satisfactorily answered some fundamental questions.

"It’s these questions," Jentleson said, "that lead the American public still to have doubts about a war fought largely unilaterally, and to want decisive action, including military force, but with the power in numbers and legitimacy that comes with acting on a genuinely multilateral basis."

Duke professor Chris Gelpi said he believes the president’s speech may have rallied the American public’s support for war, but done little to persuade the international community.

"Unfortunately, Bush’s State of the Union address conveyed precisely the wrong message to persuade other countries and leaders around the world to support the United States," said Gelpi, an associate professor of political science. "Bush paid some attention to the importance of a UN mandate, but he emphasized two points in justifying an attack on Iraq. First, he argued that the United States will use military force because Saddam Hussein represents a threat to the United States. Second, he emphasized that the United States will use military force whenever and wherever it has a unilateral interest in doing so."

Gelpi, whose area of expertise is international conflict and conflict resolution, said this approach feeds fears abroad that the U.S. is a bully that must be contained.

"Bush is playing precisely into the hands of those in Europe and elsewhere who argue that other countries should seek to limit American power and prevent American military intervention around the world. The recent election in Germany indicates that anti-Americanism can be a potent political platform. We should not exacerbate this problem."

Robert Keohane, James B. Duke Professor of Political Science, said the alternative strategy to the president’s is to keep pressure on the Iraqi regime but to be patient, so that if military action is necessary the United States would have maximum support.

"Many people in Europe and the United States doubt the urgency of action. With inspectors in Iraq and the world watching, it seems unlikely that Saddam Hussein can make much progress in producing weapons of mass destruction.

"Furthermore, it is widely feared that a war against Iraq would impose war on other countries in the Middle East. It could also distract the United States from the struggle against terrorism and generate a wave of terrorism in Europe and perhaps also against the United States."

Keohane, a past president of both the International Studies Association and the American Political Science Association, said the reputation of the Bush Administration would suffer if it backed down from the confrontation now, or entered into what could be seen as an open-ended period of delay.

"The implicit subtext of the president’s forceful address is that the United States, and his administration, has committed its reputation to disarming Iraq in 2003, and that there is no going back. The strategy is risky, but by his actions and his words, President Bush has made the costs of retreat prohibitive."

Law professor Scott Silliman, a military law expert, agrees that the Bush strategy is risky, and questions whether enough intelligence information has been gathered to make the case for war.

"In the end, the president’s case for the immediate use of force against Iraq, whether through Security Council resolution or unilateral action by the United States, still rests upon the credibility of the intelligence products yet to be presented. But if the United States forsakes the Security Council and opts to use military force against Iraq unilaterally, or with a small coalition of nations, acting under our new doctrine of preemptive self-defense, then it must be with the clear understanding that this doctrine … will not be for us alone to use."

Peter Feaver, an associate professor of political science, also doubts that U.S. allies will find Bush’s speech a persuasive case for war. "Allied opposition to the war is based on understandable, if crass, calculations of self-interest and there was little in the speech to overcome that hurdle."

Feaver, the director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, said it remains to be seen what, if any, effect the State of the Union address will have on Saddam Hussein. "He has heard strong words from America for a dozen years and it has never been backed up by effective action.

"So far, Hussein has proven adept at splitting the coalition against him and he has grounds for hoping that he can ride out this challenge like he has ridden out the last several. He will not forget, as the world appears to have forgotten, that before President Bush revived the Iraqi issue, the sanctions and inspections regime had totally collapsed, leaving Iraq with virtually a free hand."

Political science professor Joseph Grieco said he believes the president’s speech will move the tide of worldwide opinion against Saddam Hussein in the days ahead.

"Surely a key moment of truth for the world will come on Feb. 5, when Secretary of State Powell lays out the detailed case at the UN Security Council that Saddam’s regime has failed to disarm and has violated Security Council Resolution 1441, as well as earlier UN resolutions. There is a good likelihood that the UN Council will soon thereafter pass a resolution that, at its core, authorizes the use of force."

Grieco, whose research examines international relations and international conflict, said he believes France, Russia, China and other UN Security Council members will eventually support a resolution that authorizes the use of force against Iraq, in part because of the president’s State of the Union address.

Grieco added, "I was struck not just by the determination and grit that President Bush demonstrated during the Iraq section of the State of the Union address, but by the sadness and sympathy that he showed when he spoke of the likely losses of American service members and innocents if matters end in war. By that, he showed that he is walking, as a humane, decent person, a lonely and hard road."