Tough Decisions About Iraq

The Clinton administration is in a bit of a pickle over this Iraq thing.

I don't envy them having to make a decision on whether to drop bombs on Saddam Hussein.

Let me say up front that I am not a supporter of Saddam Hussein. The guy is a lunatic. He has heaped hardship, misery and death on his people and his neighbors.

The last time we dealt with Saddam, during the Bush administration, things were much different than they are today.

I think Bush's decision was a lot easier.

First of all, Saddam had just invaded another country. This time, all he's done is thumb his nose at the U.N. and their weapons inspectors.

Last time, nearly every country in the world was egging us on.

This time, nearly every country in the world - with the glaring exception of Great Britain - is telling us not to bomb Saddam.

Public perception of the Desert Storm action was very favorable. Bush's approval rating ran to around 80 percent back then.

This time around, I don't think most Americans are all that fired up about another go around with Saddam.

I think most Americans wouldn't mind if Baghdad became a smoking hole. But at the same time, they probably think that we'll never be able to get rid of Saddam anyway.

And if we don't get rid of Saddam, we'll be right back in the same situation again in a few years.

There's the question of who will pay for the action. Last time around, Bush negotiated an agreement with Kuwait. The Kuwaitis agreed to pay us for running the Iraqis out of their country. I don't know if they ever paid up, but it was a nice idea.

This time around, since nobody really wants us to attack Iraq anyway, we'd foot the whole bill.

Another reason I think the decision was easier for Bush was because Bush was a decorated fighter pilot.

He was a military kind of guy. People respected that.

Clinton "loathes the military," according to that well-publicized letter he wrote when he was in college. He also evaded the draft. I don't think he's considered a highlyqualified military guy.

Another thing that I've noticed that is a lot different this time is the voice of dissent.

Back in the Desert Storm days there was all this debate about what was a "just war."

Remember?

There were all these liberal think tanks debating whether or not we could morally engage Iraq in war over Kuwait.

This time around, I haven't heard any talk about "just wars."

One interesting development this week was the administration's effort to gauge public opinion and drum up support for its policies.

Toward those ends, the administration sent top officials to colleges to talk about why it is necessary to bomb Saddam.

Frankly, I think the exercise flopped.

People allowed into these meetings weren't screened very well.

They asked all kinds of tough questions. One guy asked what I would have asked.

He wanted to know why we single out Iraq when there are lots of countries doing stuff just as bad.

I've often wondered that.

Why did we send troops to Somalia and Bosnia to quell civil strife when there are even more severe civil wars in Sri Lanka and Nigeria?

Why do atrocities in Indonesia seem to go unnoticed? Heck, we sell them weapons. Why do we give China most favored nation trading status despite significant civil rights abuses?

The list of questions goes on and on.

So while I think ridding Iraq of biological and chemical weapons is a noble cause, I think an attack on Iraq right now is a bad idea.

Mainly, I believe that anything we do will fall short. Saddam will still be in power and after a short time we'll go through this all over again.

Also, the most carefully planned attacks won't rid Saddam of all his capabilities. After the attack, Saddam will be all the more driven to create more weapons.

Further, Saddam loves to the defy the U.S. His defiance makes him popular in the Middle East. If we bomb him, it will only make him more popular. Iran, who recently fought an eight-year war with Iraq, has already come out against U.S. intervention.

Saudi Arabia, who fears anti-Americanism in its country (bombings targeted Americans in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996), has said it will not allow strikes to originate from its soil.

Then there's the Israeli backlash factor. If we go after Saddam, it appears as if we are anti-Arab. We hold the Arab nations to their commitments, but let Israel slide in their peace process with the Palestinians.

But to me, the bigger questions are how deeply involved in the Persian Gulf region do we want to be, and how compelling a national interest is there in bombing Saddam?

In Desert Storm, the stability of the entire region was at stake. That isn't the case today.

Right now, I think the risks outweigh the benefits of an attack on Iraq.