Washington ? A Senate panel Thursday wrestled with the question of whether the United States should force Saddam Hussein from power especially given the high costs taxpayers could face in supporting a new Iraqi government.

Caspar Weinberger, former President Reagan’s defense secretary, urged quick and decisive military action to remove Saddam.

“He has violated all of the promises which we accepted when we crushed his military in the Gulf War,” Weinberger told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “He cannot be believed and he is an implacable foe of the United States.”

But Samuel Berger, former President Clinton’s national security adviser, urged caution. He said the United States needed to consider the impact on neighboring countries, which allies support an invasion, who would replace Saddam, how much assistance a new Iraqi government would need and who would pay for it, he said.

“If we don’t do this operation right, we could end up with something worse” than Saddam, he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Weinberger and Berger were the final witnesses as the committee completed two days of hearings exploring whether an invasion was needed and what its consequences would be.

The committee’s chairman, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said he hoped the hearings would stir debate in Congress and among the American public. No administration officials were asked to participate, but Biden said he might invite them to appear before the panel later this year.

President Bush has called for regime change in Iraq, citing the threat posed by Iraq’s development of chemical and biological weapons and its pursuit of nuclear weapons. But administration officials have said no decision has been made on whether to invade Iraq.

In a surprise move Thursday, Iraq invited the chief U.N. weapons inspector to Baghdad for talks it said could lead to a return of inspectors after nearly four years.

Witnesses at the Senate hearings have generally agreed that Saddam’s development of weapons of mass destruction pose a serious risk. But there have been differences about whether the threat could be ended only by military action.

Some have advocated tightening the economic embargo on Iraq or working with other nations to try to force Iraq to submit to strict weapons inspections. Iraq banned U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.

Berger said going back to the United Nations could help win international support for U.S. actions. “It is a useful vehicle for building legitimacy.”

Much of the world is wary of the possibility of the United States invading Iraq. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in remarks published Thursday that plans for attacking Iraq were unwise and outside U.N. policies. Annan was quoted in the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat as saying the U.N. Security Council had not endorsed any such move.

Weinberger shrugged off the possibility that the United States might lack allies for invading Iraq. “If we’re alone in the actual removal operations, so be it,” he said.