Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Missiles for Saddam

Thursday, Nov. 19, 1998 | 11:59 a.m.

RETURNING TO MANAGUA from Northern Nicaragua, I immediately checked to see if the United States had launched an attack on Iraq. I'm ashamed to admit feeling let down upon learning that our missiles hadn't already landed on Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard and other installations. No rational person likes war, but going to the brink of hostilities time and again since the Persian Gulf War ended is frustrating. This frustration is deepened by each crisis being triggered by a man we let off the hook when we had his army beat to a pulp.

On my way back to Nevada, I picked up some newspapers in Houston. Sure enough, at least one writer was already declaring that Saddam Hussein had won again. The crisis had been postponed and now Clinton's foreign policy is under fire. To the best of my recollection, it wasn't President Clinton in 1991 who allowed the Republican Guard to take its tanks and helicopters back to Baghdad and be used a short time later to butcher the Kurds.

President George Bush and his military leaders shouldn't receive too much criticism for backing off when they did in 1991. The world, led by crying Arab cheerleaders, was pressuring the United States to "stop the slaughter of our brother Arabs." The so-called coalition of nations to face down Saddam was held together by threads. Even during the conflict our "friends" in Jordan were whining about the Iraqis being killed. Palestinians on the West Bank of the Jordan River cheered as Scud missiles flew overhead on the way to Tel Aviv. Even Arab units assigned to fight in Desert Storm refused to follow the enemy into Iraq. So Bush, the coalition creator, felt the need to end the ground war before destroying Saddam's power base. A diplomatic, not a military, decision had been made.

Sunday evening Clinton told the nation that Iraq had backed down. He went on to say, "As I have said since this crisis began, the return of the inspectors, if they can operate in an unfettered way, is the best outcome, because they have been and they remain the most effective tool to uncover, destroy and prevent Iraq from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.

"Now let me be clear. Iraq has backed down, but that is not enough. Now Iraq must live up to its obligations. Iraq has committed to unconditionally resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors."

Does our president really believe that Saddam will now cooperate with the UNSCOM inspectors? I doubt it. He will only cooperate fully until they again get close to the weapons he has hidden and then another crisis will be created. That's when it will be necessary to hit him and his targets in sustained air attacks despite what writers like James J. Zogby of the Arab American Institute think. He believes that "Iraqi civilian casualties and massive destruction to the country's infrastructure from a bombing attack would most probably cause an anti-U.S. backlash in Arab public opinion."

The U.S. concern about Arab public opinion is what has taken us down this bumpy road built by the leader of Iraq. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia screamed for help when he sent his armies into their sphere. They and other Arab countries will scream again if he goes on another rampage. As soon as the threat is forced to retreat they will again whine about Iraqis being killed by foreigners. As late as last week, the Saudis didn't want our bombers to operate from their bases.

Sunday, President Clinton told us, "Over the past year we have deepened our engagement with the forces of change in Iraq, reconciling the two largest Kurdish opposition groups, beginning broadcasts of a Radio Free Iraq throughout the country. We will intensify that effort, working with Congress to implement the Iraq Liberation Act, which was recently passed; strengthening our political support to do what we can to make the opposition a more effective voice for the aspirations of the Iraqi people."

This is what we should have continued to do for the past eight years. Following his retreat from Kuwait, Saddam had a field day killing Kurds and we did nothing. Great Britain's Margaret Thatcher finally goaded us into saving the Kurds and since then creating a no-fly zone for Iraq aircraft. We also made a halfhearted attempt to unite the Kurds. In 1992 I went into Iraq from Turkey to help them set up an election supported by both Kurdish factions. After that we gave them little support and they went back to fighting among themselves.

Will this latest effort to dump Saddam be any more successful than past weak efforts? I won't bet on it, because it now might be too little, too late. We can hope it will work, but in the long run, we will probably have to start all over again and hit Saddam's power bases with missiles. We should have the answer before Christmas.