Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Thinking before acting

Thursday, Oct. 3, 2002 | 9:14 a.m.

IN A PREVIOUS COLUMN, I agreed with several leading Republican and Democratic senators that President George W. Bush has to make a better case for immediately attacking Iraq. They also have encouraged him to line up greater international support. I added that adequate troop staging and enough modern weapons must be available now and not after we attack that country. Once the fire starts we must be ready with additional weapons and troops if it spreads.

There is no debate over Saddam Hussein being an international criminal, and his demise would be good for the world. The only questions that must be answered are the following: Is he a clear and present danger? Will key members of the United Nations support our position during a war? There has been little doubt that Great Britain and Israel see the threat of Saddam, but too many others are dragging their feet. In Germany it became a bitter issue during that country's recent national election.

Little by little our president has convinced some other foreign leaders to see things his way. Members of Congress are scrambling to give him a resolution that doesn't sell out of all their powers like the resolution President Lyndon Johnson received to open up a full-scale war in Vietnam. At the same time, the Iraqi leader provides our president with more ammunition by insisting that eight presidential palaces, which cover more than 12 square miles, are off-limits for U.N. weapons inspectors. This agreement Saddam has now achieved with the U.N. should be unacceptable to the United States.

So what do I see coming out of Baghdad this week as Saddam continues to dance with the U.N.? He has started, through the U.S. press, to play his popular funeral dirge. It was during Desert Shield that he warned of his large army and its ability to fill body bags with American troops. Oh, yes, he was also going to incinerate Israel. Desert Storm took all of the wind out of his sails and only by a bad political decision was he allowed to survive.

Vivienne Walt, writing in Wednesday's USA Today cover story, told readers, "What the citizens of Baghdad do under attack could be critical. Street fighting -- if it occurs -- could entangle U.S. and allied soldiers in an ugly urban conflict in a city that is Saddam's power base. U.S. forces could easily capture other parts of Iraq, where the government's control is weaker. But achieving 'regime change' in Baghdad could be difficult and costly, especially if armed civilians join the fray."

Walt goes on to write that Iraqis admit they can't defeat U.S. armed forces, but "They say they hope that if civilians and soldiers hold out long enough, American casualties might quickly erode support for the war back home. Iraqis point to the Somalia conflict in 1993, when television footage of a U.S. soldier being dragged through the capital led President Clinton to withdraw troops.

" 'We believe Americans want a war without casualties,' says a Foreign Ministry official who asked not to be named. 'There is a feeling that they will not come and fight us man to man.' "

The USA Today writer in a related story quoted Iraqi Minister Mohammed Mehdi Saleh as saying that "thousands and thousands" of Americans could be killed if they entered Baghdad. So the Arabic funeral music continues as Iraqi leaders forget that Sept. 11, 2001, is still on our minds. Saddam had better not count on being let off the hook if there is war. This isn't the same time or the same country that it was in 1991 and 1993.

I would hesitate attacking Iraq until all of the weapons inspectors' cards are played and we can see a present danger. If it comes down to launching an attack, it must be deadly and done swiftly. Should our troops be required to fight door-to-door in Baghdad? No. Rather than sacrifice troops in such fighting, the buildings should be blown down. Also, those eight presidential palaces the U.N. can't inspect should be destroyed the first hour of the war. A winning army doesn't fight by the rules of the enemy, but sets its own rules and psychologically dominates a battered enemy to the point it will turn on the leader who caused them the pain.

Americans should understand the empty threats that so many dictators use to impress their followers. Recent history shows that Saddam is a master of that game, but that's not the game that counts when modern military forces strike.