THE WEEKLY  STANDARD  NO V E M B E R   16, 1998

NOV E M B E R 16, 1998         THE WEE K L Y STAN D AR D / 17

http://  web.archive.org  /web/2003110  5180304  /http:// newamericancentury  .org/AttackIraq-Nov   16,98.pdf  (close spaces)

next few weeks the Clinton administration will

have to strike Iraq. There really are no acceptable

alternatives. Saddam's recent demand for the expulsion

of the U. N. weapons inspectors and for the

removal of Richard Butler as head of the inspections

regime is mostly a ploy to buy time. Saddam would,

of course, like to force the United States and the U. N.

to agree to further dilution of the

already badly compromised inspection

effort.

The deal he wangled with U. N.

secretary general Kofi Annan last

February has so far worked out

wonderfully for him. The next deal

he wants would look something like

this: In return for backing down

from his latest challenge, Saddam is

rewarded with a U. N. Security

Council commitment to wrap up its

review of Iraq's compliance with

the inspections regime and to move

quickly to lift economic sanctions. France and Russia

would agree to such a deal in a heartbeat. But even if

the Clinton administration blocked it at the Security

Council, Saddam wouldn't mind. The longer the present

crisis lasts, the more weeks the United States

spends arguing with its allies and with Russia, the

closer Saddam comes to his real objective: finally

acquiring chemical and biological weapons of mass

destruction and the missiles to deliver them.

CIA director George Tenet said last January that

Iraq already had the "technological expertise" to produce

biological weapons "in a matter of weeks." And

according to former U. N. weapons inspector Scott

R i t t e r, Saddam needs only six months without

inspectors looking over his shoulder to build those

weapons and deploy them on missiles capable of

reaching Israel and other targets in the Middle East.

months, since the inspections effectively came to a

halt at the beginning of August. He's halfway home.

By the time the newly elected Congress returns to

Washington, we could well be facing a Saddam armed

with some of the most dangerous weapons known to

m a n .

Even the Clinton administration must now realize

that its preferred strategy-diplomacy backed by

bluff-has failed and that Saddam

is an inch away from (to use the

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n's lingo) "b r e a k i n g

out of his box." Even the president

and his team must know that more

diplomatic compromises will only

play into Saddam's hands. More

hollow threats of force, more empty

declarations that "all options are

on the table," will only further

erode America's already badly

damaged credibility. As the Iraqi

vice president said a few days ago,

"Iraq does not fear the threats of

the United States because it has been threatening Iraq

for the past eight years." Even the Clinton administration,

confronted by the inescapable and horrible

logic of the situation, will soon come to the conclusion

that military action is necessary.

But what kind of military action? Last Fe b r u a r y

the administration geared itself up for a strike, only to

realize belatedly that the action it had planned-a

c r u i s e-missile attack to destroy suspected Iraqi

w e a p o n s-production sites-was not going to solve the

problem. For one thing, military planners could not

be confident that they knew where all the production

facilities were-after all, that was precisely what the

U. N. inspectors had been prevented from finding out.

And for another thing, when all the U.S. missiles had

been fired, Saddam would still be in power in Baghdad.

What would military action have accomplished?

much. That's one of the reasons Clinton officials

decided to embrace the lousy deal that Ko fi A n n a n

negotiated with the Iraqi government.

So now we're back to where we were in Fe b r u a r y :

the same crisis, the same high stakes, the same

unpleasant options. The Clinton administration, of

course, would still prefer to launch a cruise- m i s s i l e

attack because it carries almost no political or military

risk. But officials should remember what they

learned last February: It won't work.

It won't work, that is, if that's all the United States

does. There is a way to deal with Saddam that can

work, and we've outlined it in these pages over the

past year: It is to complete the unfinished business of

the 1991 Gulf War and get rid of Saddam.

Any sustained bombing and missile campaign

against Iraq should be part of an overall political-military

strategy aimed at removing Saddam from power.

And as it happens, the elements of such a strategy are

already falling into place. On Saturday, President

Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act,

which authorizes the provision of almost $100 million

in military assistance to anti-Saddam forces in

Iraq. The idea, as outlined by former undersecretary

"liberated zone" in southern Iraq that would provide

a safe haven where opponents of Saddam could rally

and organize a credible alternative to the present

regime.

This is not a plan for victory on the cheap: The

liberated zone would have to be protected by U. S .

military might, both from the air and, if necessary, on

the ground. And that would require beefing up our

ground and air forces in the Middle East immediatel

y. But unlike a one-shot cruise-missile strike, the

Wolfowitz plan offers a chance for a lasting solution

to the Iraqi crisis.

Saddam Hussein's behavior over the past year, not

to mention over the past twenty years, ought to have

proved that the world will never be safe, and U. S .

interests and allies will never be secure, so long as

Saddam is in charge in Baghdad. Unless we are prepared

to live in a world where aggressive dictators

like Saddam Hussein wield weapons of mass destruction-

presumably not the legacy for which President

Clinton would like to be remembered-then the time

has come to take the necessary risks to prevent it.

There is no more middle ground; there are no more

safe options. Maybe even Bill Clinton now unders

t a n d s . ¨