 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Is now the time to go after Iraq?
© St. Petersburg Times Even though he lost the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraq's Saddam Hussein has remained firmly in power, figuratively thumbing his nose at a series of U.S. presidents and other world leaders who would love to see him go. Is now the time to strike at Hussein? Next to destroying Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, there would seem to be no more logical target in the war against terrorism than the 64-year-old Hussein. He's a brutal dictator who has gassed his own people, invaded two of his neighbors, fired missiles at Israel and is presumed to be developing a nuclear bomb, among other weapons of mass destruction. "The more we delay, the more we are risking the whole world," said Entifadh Qambar of the Iraqi National Congress, an opposition group that urges immediate action against Hussein. But an impressive lineup of skeptics -- including policy analysts, military leaders and America's closest allies -- say now is the wrong time. They note there is no evidence directly linking Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks, and there is much disagreement over how to remove him, who would replace him and how any changes in Iraq might affect the region's shaky balance of power. "This is why people have backed down from '91," said Phebe Marr, an Iraq expert and former fellow at the U.S. Institute for National Strategic Studies. "Every time you think about getting support in the region, getting support inside Iraq, the resources we would have to apply, mobilizing the American public -- all this is so difficult it stops people in their tracks, even those who want a change of regime." The Bush administration, which would spearhead any move to oust Hussein, appears increasingly torn about how to proceed. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who directed the Gulf War during the first Bush presidency, has urged restraint for fear of antagonizing U.S. allies, especially those in the Arab world. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, on the other hand, is convinced Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and makes no secret he is eager to get rid of Hussein. But he seemed to back down a bit in a recent interview, saying more immediate targets might include terrorist groups in Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia and the Philippines. Late last week, President Bush further muddied the waters. He warned that Hussein must let U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq or face action from the United States. But, Bush added, no decision had been made on extending the antiterrorist campaign beyond Afghanistan. Hussein replied that Iraq had survived the Gulf War and was ready to fight again. Iraqis "now have more confidence in themselves and more conviction in their march than they had in the year 1991," he said. Even experts are uncertain how much support Hussein really has from the Iraqi people, who have endured almost two decades of war and war-related sanctions. There is no doubt he is ruthless with his enemies, has superb intelligence services and wields iron control over his military. That makes it unlikely that Iraq's 22-million people would rise up against him, no matter how much they might hate him. Toby Dodge, an associate fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, went to Iraq last spring. His visit coincided with a gathering of Shiite Muslims, a group in Hussein's bad graces since Shiites in southern Iraq staged an unsuccessful revolt shortly after the Gulf War. "I was there for the biggest Shiite pilgrimage, a time of a kind of theatrical and often violent opposition to the government, so I asked in Baghdad if I could go and to my great surprise I was allowed to," Dodge said. "The security was comparatively light, there was very little obvious military and this strikes me as a regime that's very confident. There is a feeling that we've been through the mill terribly and come out on the other side. I think the regime is confident it can control the population, that the south isn't the threat it used to be." Phebe Marr thinks the Iraqi populace -- including army and government officials -- might be more mentally prepared for a change than they were in 1991. The Shiite rebellion that year "was spontaneous and that's one of the main reasons it collapsed," she said. "Now it's almost 12 years later, and certainly the outside opposition, if it's done anything, has made it clear that the Iraqi population doesn't like this guy. "However, there is no organization. I'm not going to tell you that just because they're more mentally prepared they've been able to collaborate or coordinate on ideas. There's no organization that can possibly rear its head inside Iraq because we know what would happen to it." Since 1998, the U.S. government has been working with opposition groups outside Iraq to overthrow Hussein and replace him with a democratic government. Some $100-million has been earmarked for activities including humanitarian aid, computer training and intelligence-gathering. The best known of the groups is the London-based Iraqi National Congress. It is headed by Ahmed Chalabi, an expensively dressed ex-banker and academician who has a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago. Although it has not worked openly in Iraq since 1996, when an ouster attempt failed spectacularly, the INC claims to have excellent covert operations within the country. It also takes credit for several key defections, including that of a civil engineer who said he helped renovate private villas and even part of Baghdad's Saddam Hussein Hospital as storage for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. But critics have long been suspicious of Chalabi, who was involved in a huge banking scandal in Jordan in the '80s, and a common joke is that the INC has "more friends on the Potomac than it does on the Tigris." Even that may no longer be true: The U.S. State Department recently suspended aid to the group, saying it could not properly account for more than $2-million in U.S. money. Qambar, director of the INC's Washington office, said the organization is changing its bookkeeping practices to comply with federal requirements. But he says the real reason for the aid cutoff is a rift between the Bush administration and State Department officials, who don't want to aggressively go after Hussein now. "It's not about money," he said, "it's about politics." The INC says that Hussein is weak enough now that he could be toppled relatively easily. As Qambar describes it, a few thousand well-trained, tank-equipped INC troops would enter Iraq from a neighboring country. Protected by "superior U.S air power," they would secure a portion of territory as a "small, clean zone." "Then you'd start to have masses of the army defecting and people moving toward Baghdad," he said. "The Iraqi army is very fed up with their own leader and the Iraqi people are ready to fight. I'm not saying it's going to be a slam-dunk situation, but Saddam would be gone, just like the Taliban. But he'd be easier than the Taliban because Saddam has less support." Critics see at least one huge problem with this scenario: It is not at all clear which, if any, of Iraq's neighbors would host the incursion force. Syria, Jordan and Kuwait might be wary of cooperating for fear the invasion would fail and Iraq would attack them. As for Iran, the United States would be reluctant to enlist its aid for fear Shiite Muslims there would join forces with Shiites in Iraq to replace Hussein with an Islamic government. INC troops could go in through northern Iraq, which Kurdish Muslims control with the help of U.S. and British air cover. But the Kurds -- 5,000 of whom were gassed and killed by Hussein in 1988 -- have learned to coexist with Baghdad and would be wary of changing the status quo. "If you want to look at absolute fear, look in the face of a Kurdish politician," said Dodge, of the Royal Institute. "Three or four generations have paid the price of rebelling against Baghdad." That leaves Turkey, which has its own Kurdish problems and worries that any upheaval in Iraq could send thousands of Kurdish refugees flooding across the border. Turkey is also said to be a lucrative partner in Hussein's oil smuggling. "I don't think an invasion is in any way physically possible," Dodge said. And even if Saddam Hussein were overthrown, forming a democratic government from the dozens of religious, political and ethnic opposition groups could be a near impossibility, some experts warn. "President Bush, beware: If you really want to extend the Afghan war to Iraq you should know that the nightmarish internal politics of Afghanistan are nothing compared with those of Iraq," Said Aburish, author of a new book on Hussein, wrote in Britain's New Statesman magazine. "The Northern Alliance may not be a very palatable alternative to the Taliban, but it has a certain rough credibility. There is no equivalent in Iraq." Phebe Marr agrees that the transition to a new Iraqi government would be turbulent but adds "that's the price we're going to have to pay" to set Iraq on a better course. But she questions whether anything will happen in the immediate future, given the need to finish al-Qaida and the lack of support for a military campaign against Hussein, especially in the region. "One cannot be too optimistic about Iraq," she says. "It's in a stalemate. And so is our policy." -- Susan Taylor Martin can be contacted at susan@sptimes.com
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times wire desk
From the AP |
