Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SATURDAY, February 16, 1991                   TAG: 9102180326
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A/11   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

CAN SADDAM BE DEALT WITH?

Words in any case are no substitute for deeds as a demonstration of intent. The peace plan comes with strings attached that, quite correctly, are unacceptable to the allies fighting Saddam.

Even so, it makes sense to explore Saddam's intentions and monitor his offer's evolution. The allied effort should remain open to an agreement under which a lull in fighting would allow Iraqi forces to withdraw under strict surveillance.

That Saddam's initiative may have been a hoax does not mean it couldn't become something else. The statement lists conditions that "should" be met, such as Israel's withdrawal from occupied lands. But it also offers compliance with a U.N. resolution requiring unconditional withdrawal. Why not, in conjunction with the Soviets and others, test the possibilities?

Meantime, the offer raises a more complex question: Can the war end with Saddam in power? Even assuming the peace plan was pure propaganda, it made little sense for Bush to respond by saying, as he did Friday, that Iraqis could bring the war to a quick end if they "take matters into their own hands" and overthrow Saddam.

A few points to keep in mind:

Applicable U.N. resolutions, which the American-led international coalition is charged with enforcing, do not call for Saddam's death or removal. Americans will shed few tears if that is the war's effect, but it must remain a side effect. This war's purpose is to make Iraq quit Kuwait.

The allied forces have seized the opportunity afforded by Saddam's defiance to attack his military-industrial complex, including his nuclear and chemical-weapons capacity, and to inflict severe damage on his military forces. Technically speaking, this too has been a side effect of the war, but a useful one. It has substantially diminished Iraq's future as well as current war-making potential.

The Bush administration has wisely recognized the need, amid the destruction visited upon Iraq, not to endanger its territorial integrity or its viability as a state. A postwar carving-up or domination of Iraq by its neighbors, Iran and Syria in particular, would not serve any good purpose.

If Saddam were to stay in power and comply with U.N. resolutions, his threat to the region still could be kept in check by restricting arms imports and military formations and, if necessary, by continuing economic sanctions until the menace is minimized.

Iraq clearly would be better off without Saddam, not only because of the suffering he has caused, but also because Iraq would continue to be treated harshly and suspiciously by other nations as long as he remains. For these very reasons, though, Iraqis might take it upon themselves - without Bush's encouragement - to get rid of Saddam after losing another war.

Could Hitler, a figure much invoked by Bush, have been acceptable to the allies and the world (not to mention the Germans) as Germany's leader after World War II? Of course not. But Saddam would be subject if he lives (as Hitler would have been, had he lived) to war-crimes proceedings following the war's end. This could help facilitate the Iraqi's removal.

Meanwhile, as they continue fighting to reverse Iraq's aggression against Kuwait, Bush and his allies should invite and explore any opportunity to obtain that end while ending the war.