A new strategy for Iraq

With another unrequited provocation, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has shown that the U.S. doesn't want to attack his country. While U.S. President Bill Clinton shouldn't make empty threats against the bully in Baghdad, he was correct this time not to strike.

Dec. 7, 1998

4 min read

In response to Saddam's latest mischief, Americans showed no surge of anti-Iraqi passion and no corresponding willingness to sacrifice anything. They seem to have grown accustomed to hating Saddam in the abstract. They may even welcome his misbehavior subconsciously as validation of their ill feelings. The mood might last until someone gets hurt.

The damage

Saddam didn't hurt anybody. He just got in the way of weapons inspectors from the United Nations for the umpteenth time. For this U.S. warriors should risk their lives and innocent Iraqis should die? Growing sentiment in the U.S. says no.

Correctly reading the popular mood, Clinton once again pulled back from the edge of war. The politically proper withdrawal nevertheless elevated Saddam and weakened U.S. credibility. It also highlighted the U.S. need for a new strategy.

The strategy should clearly define the problem, which is Saddam Hussein, not Iraq or Iraqis. The objective must be to remove Saddam from power.

The strategy also needs to clarify the two reasons for U.S. concern: allies and oil.

Important U.S. allies in the Middle East depend on American defense. No one should be shocked if they hedge allegiances when U.S. resolve wavers. What else can they do?

The other reason to be concerned about Iraq, Middle Eastern oil, represents a vital U.S. interest. The interest relates to freedom of oil to move in international trade, not to how much oil the U.S. or any other country directly receives from the region. Big impediments to oil trade disrupt economies everywhere. General economic disruption hurts the U.S.

Furthermore, as the country best able to project military power, the U.S. shoulders most responsibility for dealing with trouble-makers. If anything is to be done about the trouble-maker in Iraq, the U.S. will have to lead. Indeed, its flinches terrorize the world, especially the world within range of Saddam's missiles.

So dependent allies, vital economic interest, and superpower status propel U.S. strategy. What's next?

First, the U.S. needs to distance itself from the UN, which is in the way. The inspection teams have produced valuable information and often performed heroically. With impunity, however, Saddam now strong-arms the inspectors when they get close to what he hides. They have lost effectiveness.

Moreover, misplaced UN humanitarianism causes too much hardship. A wretchedly designed "oil-for-food" program has helped to wreck the oil market, to destabilize oil-producing countries around Iraq, and-in a colossal perversion of generous intent-to strengthen Saddam's grip on power.

Second, the U.S. should acknowledge that UN sanctions against Iraq have only hurt the innocent. It should withdraw support for the general trade embargo but treat weapons sales to Iraq as acts of hostility toward American interests.

Third, the U.S. should declare over and over that its quarrel is with Saddam Hussein, not Iraq or Iraqis. It should follow through on Clinton's announced intention to support resistance efforts.

Restoring confidence

Finally, the U.S. must restore global confidence in its leadership. It shouldn't brandish arms unless it has domestic support for the essential sacrifice. Demonizing Saddam Hussein isn't enough. Saddam threatens real U.S. interests, including allies otherwise at odds with one another, oil, and international order.

Clinton must assert those interests as matters of highest priority to Americans. Doing so might not be popular. But it would be realism of the type that the world expects of leaders. And it would provide solid footing for whatever action the U.S. might eventually take in Iraq.