Editorial: Saddam’s removal a ‘cakewalk’?

Thursday, Feb. 14, 2002 | 8:45 a.m.

Bush administration officials are weighing a number of options to topple the Iraqi regime headed by Saddam Hussein. The possibilities range from providing covert aid to opposition groups in Iraq to direct military intervention. We couldn't agree more that Saddam should go. Saddam is a dictator who not only thinks nothing of killing his own people, but he also is a source of instability in the Middle East.

Still, it is troubling that some military analysts and hawks in the Bush administration make it sound as if it's no sweat to conquer Iraq. Ken Adelman, the arms control director for President Reagan, wrote in a commentary for the Washington Post this week that "demolishing Saddam's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." But no one should be lulled into thinking that Saddam's defeat automatically would be as easy as the rout of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Unlike in Afghanistan, where the Northern Alliance was waging war against the Taliban and where there also was resistance from some groups in the southern part of that Central Asian country, no major insurgency has taken hold in Iraq. The Kurds in northern Iraq would be the logical ethnic group to form a resistance, but as the Wall Street Journal reported this week, the Kurds are thriving economically and there isn't much appetite to take on Baghdad. The Kurds also remember all too well that in 1991 the U.S. government reneged on its commitment to help them if they staged an uprising against Saddam. The United States did nothing when the Kurds were attacked by Iraq's military, leading to the slaughter of innocent people and the exodus of 1 million Kurds who fled to Turkey.

The military prowess of Iraq was overstated before the Gulf War, and that military isn't what it was before that conflict. Nonetheless the Iraqi military still could be a formidable foe, especially since it's estimated to have 400,000 troops. Also complicating matters is that it's difficult to believe that a Middle Eastern country would allow us to use their soil to stage a military action against Iraq; the United States is fortunate that Pakistan is doing that for us in the war in Afghanistan. A military operation also could require a considerable number of troops. Philip Gordon and Michael O'Hanlon, foreign policy analysts at the Brookings Institution who believe that the odds for military success in Iraq have been overstated, wrote a commentary for the Washington Post in December that contended the United States might have to deploy from 100,000 to 200, 000 troops to fight Iraq.

Bush's State of the Union address that characterized Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "axis of evil" has generated quite a bit of controversy, especially among U.S. allies who worry about the U.S.'s growing unilateral foreign policy. A direct military conflict in Iraq would be a leap in our foreign policy -- a major departure from our current containment policy. None of this is to suggest that the United States should do nothing and let Saddam continue his acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Getting rid of Saddam should be a priority for the Bush administration, and military action very well may be the only way to remove him from power -- but it should be a carefully thought-out last resort.