Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, March 3, 1991 TAG: 9103030144
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
U.S. officials say the only viable immediate replacement for Saddam will have to come from the military. "You have to have power to take over power," said one State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "And that means the generals."
The Bush administration hasn't taken a public stand on the highly sensitive issue of who might replace Saddam should he flee Baghdad or be overthrown. President Bush has urged Iraqis to remove Saddam - but when asked about an alternative, his aides say they'll leave it up to the Iraqi people.
However, government analysts hope Iraq's military leadership will be so humiliated by the sweeping allied victory that they'll overthrow the leader who went to war for a cause most didn't believe in. The scenario of generals taking power is described in a proposed blueprint for the postwar gulf region, presented to U.S. policy-makers by government and outside analysts.
The officials said they do not know which generals might be powerful enough to remove Saddam, since any obvious candidates probably would have been eliminated.
But the administration isn't taking any chances. In the coming months, it will try to accomplish economically and politically what it failed to achieve militarily: maintain a trade and arms embargo on Iraq that will squeeze Saddam out of power.
For the time being, officials predict Saddam will try to ride the storm with the help of his ubiquitous secret police.
Saddam has ruthlessly suppressed all opposition since assuming power 11 years ago. He's also put the fear into his generals, executing some when he thought they posed a threat or were getting too popular.
In 1986, when the war against Iran appeared to be going badly, Saddam eased his tight grip on the military and allowed the generals more freedom - a move credited with turning the war toward Iraq's 1988 victory.
He may try to placate the military again, although U.S. officials predict he'll fail in the long run.
Iraq has been ruled by several military juntas during its violent modern-day history, and democracy has not taken root there or in any part of the region.
Opposition to Saddam has only emerged in exile - mostly in London, Iran and Syria - and in northern Iraq where the 20 percent Kurdish minority has been fighting for autonomy.
The opposition groups include the Kurds, Muslim Shiites in Iran and former officials of Saddam's Baath Party who broke with him and fled to London or Damascus.
State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said the administration has not met with any representatives of the opposition. The department refused to meet with a coalition of Kurdish groups several days ago, saying it doesn't want to encourage secession.
Saudi Arabia is sponsoring its own alternative - a group of Sunni Moslems who broke with Saddam in the 1970s and 1980s.
One scenario advocated by some within the administration is for the military to serve as a transition to more democratic rule in the future.
Iraq, they point out, is composed of disparate groups - Kurds, Saddam's Sunni minority, the Shiite majority, and a Christian minority. Iraqi critics say that for all Saddam's faults, his strong hand has kept the unruly population together and prevented chaos.
But liberals in Congress dispute the view that democracy can't work in Iraq, accusing the administration of bowing to the sensitivities of Saudi Arabia's monarchs who fear pluralism in Iraq would endanger their absolute hold on power.
"We should do what we can to encourage a democratic alternative to Saddam Hussein," said Sen. Claiborne Pell, D-R.I., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "And above all, we should not accept the replacement of Saddam Hussein with another general . . . who will run yet one more authoritarian Iraqi regime."
by CNB