CRAWFORD, Texas, August 26 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - Lawyers working for U.S. President George W. Bush have concluded he does not need additional congressional approval to order military action against Iraq, White House officials said Sunday, August 25.

Without specifically addressing White House obligations under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which only allows the president to act unilaterally with military force for 60 to 90 days, requiring congressional approval for troops to remain engaged in hostilities after that period, the legal experts based their conclusion on three basic factors, Agence France-Presse (AFP) said.

Under the U.S. constitution, the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the officials said.

They also cited a 1991 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in the 1991 Gulf War and the September 14, 2001, resolution which gives the government authority to use force against perpetrators of terrorist acts.

"Any decision the president may make on a hypothetical congressional vote will be guided by more than one factor," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told AFP.

"The president will consider a variety of legal, policy, and historical issues if this becomes a relevant matter," he added. "He will confer with Congress, and Congress has an important role to play."

But "We don't want to be in the legal position of asking Congress to authorize the use of force when the president already has that full authority," a senior administration official told the Washington Post. "We don't want, in getting a resolution, to have conceded that one was constitutionally necessary."

Bush has declared Iraq to be part of an "axis of evil" along with North Korea and Iran and vowed to overthrow President Saddam Hussein, accused by the U.S. of developing weapons of mass destruction.

Although administration officials privately say that military strikes against Hussein's regime are virtually inevitable, all the specifics have not been decided and action is not imminent. And while some administration officials are adamant that no authorization is required, others argue it might be desirable to seek congressional support as a matter of statesmanship and build public support, reports the Washington Post.

"The legal question and the practical question may be very different," said one administration official. "There is a view that while there is not a legal necessity to seek anything further, as a matter of statesmanship and politics and practicality, it's necessary - or at a minimum, strongly advisable - to do it."

The Post reports that the difference between getting legislators' opinions, as opposed to their permission, could lead to a showdown this fall between Congress and the White House.

The legal finding comes amid intensifying debate among prominent Republicans over whether the United States should attack Iraq.

Former secretary of state James Baker, who served in the administration of the current president's father, George Bush, urged the White House to seek approval from allies before using military force to depose Saddam.

"Although the United States could certainly succeed, we should try our best not to have to go it alone, and the president should reject the advice of those who counsel doing so," Baker wrote in the New York Times.

He underlined that the costs of such a war would be "much greater," as would political risks both at home and abroad "if we end up going it alone or with only one or two other countries."

Arguing that the only realistic way to oust Saddam was through massive use of military force, including the occupation of Baghdad and installation of a new government, Baker also said more casualties than in the Gulf War would be likely as a result of such action.

Baker also said the United States should seek a new U.N. Security Council resolution requiring Iraq to submit to intrusive inspections anytime, anywhere, with no exceptions and authorizing all necessary means to enforce it.

Baker is the latest prominent former government official to lend his weight to those urging caution in dealing with Iraq.

The past two weeks have seen Republican heavyweights like former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, ex-secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger, Senator Chuck Hagel and Representative Dick Armey voice concern that a unilateral U.S. military operation against Baghdad could trigger an explosion of anti-American sentiment in the region.

"There are a number of experienced people who are expressing a wide variety of views," McClellan said when asked about Baker's comments. "The president welcomes those views and takes them very seriously."

The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup opinion poll showed public support for a U.S. ground invasion of Iraq slipped from 74% in November to 53% last week. Only 20% of those surveyed favored sending troops to topple Saddam without allied support.

Meanwhile, the Times reported Monday, Saddam will most likely try to tie up U.S. forces in urban warfare, if the Bush administration moves to topple his government.