The Weekly Standards November 17, 1997 Saddam Must Go editorial:
Some nations can afford to suffer more humiliation than others. When youre the United States, even a little humiliation exacts too high a price. This isnt just a matter of national pride. When the worlds strongest power abases itself, allies begin to worry, adversaries start whetting their appetites, and pretty soon Americas international credibility a big and important component of national power starts taking a dive.
This past week, Iraqs Saddam Hussein humiliated the United States: First he ordered the expulsion of American officials from a United Nations team charged with ensuring that Iraq is not producing weapons of mass destruction. Then he demanded an end to all flights by American U-2 surveillance aircraft over Iraq and threatened to shoot them down. Then he moved some equipment that could be used to manufacture weapons out of the range of video cameras that had been installed by the U.N. inspection team to keep watch over them.
A few observers, including some administration officials, have described Saddams actions as foolish. Some fool. Saddams actions are well calibrated to achieve three important aims: to embarrass and thereby weaken the United States; to exploit divisions in the international coalition that defeated him in the Gulf War but has been fraying ever since; and last but certainly not least, to build as rapidly as possible the weapons of mass destruction that can put him back in the drivers seat in the Middle East a scant six years after his armies were decimated in Operation Desert Storm.
Despite the Clinton administrations denials, Saddam appears to be succeeding on all three fronts. The last is particularly alarming. According to a report in the New York Times, U.N. inspectors believe that Iraq now possesses the elements of a deadly germ warfare arsenal and perhaps poison gases, as well as the rudiments of a missile system that can launch the warheads. Thanks to Saddams recent actions, the U.N. inspection team can no longer verify that Iraq is not making weapons of mass destruction and specifically cannot monitor equipment that could grow seed stocks of biological agents in a matter of hours.
The Clinton administrations response to Saddam so far has compounded the humiliation, and the danger. On the one hand, officials trying to sound ominous in warning Saddam against a wrong step have succeeded only in sounding ridiculous as when President Clinton declared it would be a big mistake for Saddam to shoot down an American U-2. On the other hand, the administration has agreed or worse still, has been forced to agree to a number of concessions to Saddams bullying. Rather than simply telling Saddam to shove it and preparing the first wave of air and missile strikes, the United Nations dispatched a team last week to talk with Saddam about the importance of complying with U.N. resolutions. The Clinton administration insisted that these talks were not negotiations, but that pretense was all but exploded when the U.N. and the United States agreed to suspend the U-2 flights Saddam had complained about. This appalling concession, intended to improve the atmosphere for these non-negotiations, was the worst of the administrations missteps so far.
All these concessions were evidence, moreover, that the old Gulf War coalition is indeed collapsing. Apparently, the United States has been having a devil of a time convincing other Security Council members to approve any kind of military action against Saddam, no matter how long he defies the international community. At the end of last week, administration officials started talking about trying to persuade them at least to impose new sanctions on Iraq. Even that action, however, pitiful as it is, would be difficult given the clear determination of the French and Russians to remove sanctions altogether.
But heres the really bad news. Even if the United States summoned the courage, alone or with U.N. approval, to launch a missile strike against Iraq this week or next, such an attack would gain only a brief pause in the downward slide of U.S. policy in the Gulf. Saddam has already calculated that he can survive another cruise-missile strike, as he survived the last, and may even come out of it in a stronger position. Once the assault has ended, the situation will return to the status quo ante: The international coalition will continue to collapse, Saddam will continue to probe for weaknesses, and U.S. credibility will continue to erode. Indeed, a U.S. attack that leaves Saddam in charge of Iraq, no matter how much damage it does to his country, might serve only to expose the futility of American power
So there is really only one alternative now. It has become increasingly clear ever since the Gulf War ended that the Gulf War ended badly. The decision to leave Saddam in control of Iraq, and to hope vainly that he would be overthrown or assassinated by his own people, was a mistake an understandable mistake, perhaps, but a mistake nevertheless. We were sorry to see former President Bush last week denounce those who are now coming to this conclusion. The fact that he erred in letting Saddam remain in power does not detract from his magnificent accomplishment in fighting the Gulf War and liberating Kuwait. It would be a real service to the nation if Bush could acknowledge his error. Because what we most need now is to take the difficult but inescapable next step of finishing the job Bush started.
American policy toward Iraq should aim at removing Saddam from power. We are under no illusions about what will be required to accomplish this goal. There will be no coup against Saddam and no assassination at the hands of his own lieutenants. Nor, unfortunately, will an air and missile strike do the job. In a sustained air campaign, we might get lucky and hit Saddam by accident, but if we didnt get him during the weeks-long barrage of air and missile attacks in Desert Storm, were unlikely to succeed in a shorter and smaller attack today.
We would certainly support a serious and sustained air attack on Iraq, and the sooner the better. But the only sure way to take Saddam out is on the ground. We know it seems unthinkable to propose another ground attack to take Baghdad. But its time to start thinking the unthinkable. The fact is, it would take fewer than the half-million troops deployed in Desert Storm to roll into Baghdad today, especially after an air campaign scattered or destroyed whatever resistance Saddam might be able to throw up. Who knows how many Iraqi soldiers would even fight in a Desert Storm II? Their last experience against American forces and weapons was not such as to encourage exceptional valor
If you dont like this option, weve got another one for you: continue along the present course and get ready for the day when Saddam has biological and chemical weapons at the tips of missiles aimed at Israel and at American forces in the Gulf. That day may not be far off.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/saddam-must-go
Please take me off your ping list. I didn't request to be added to it.
The Weekly Standard never met a war it didn’t want the US involved in, especially in the Middle East. Israel has the strongest defense in the Middle East. It can take care of itself. As for our troops in the Middle East, they shouldn’t be there.
Nobody at the Weekly Standard saddled up and went off to war.