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

DATE: WEDNESDAY, April 10, 1991                   TAG: 9104100416
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-6   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

HITLER, SANCTIONS REVISITED

TIMES CHANGE. Remember, a few months ago, when President Bush was explaining why war against Iraq was necessary? His justification depended significantly on two assertions: (1) Saddam Hussein is like Hitler; (2) sanctions won't work.

Yet, since the war, we haven't heard much from the White House about these assertions. How come?

The president, to be sure, may see little need in recalling such arguments for an intervention that has been acclaimed a resounding success.

Then again, consider the two assertions in light of postwar developments.

Saddam Hussein is another Hitler, the president said - a fine point to make when you're about to wage war against the man.

After you've won the war, though, and the tyrant remains in power, the comparison becomes more difficult. It's hard to imagine the allied victors allowing Hitler to stay in office in Germany following the end of World War II.

Not only have the allies in this war allowed the new Hitler to retain control of his country; they watched while he slaughtered civilians and smashed a rebellion that President Bush had expressly invited.

In fact, America has no authority to intervene in the civil war, and could not indefinitely occupy Iraq. Saddam is in a better position than the rebels to keep Iraq intact, the thinking goes; therefore, better not chase him into Baghdad.

Whatever you may think of this policy, it requires a downplaying of the Hitler analogy.

The economic-sanctions argument also has undergone a change of context.

In the months following the invasion of Kuwait, President Bush masterfully marshaled international support for sanctions against Iraq.

By virtually all indications and according to the testimony of a host of experts and former top government officials, the oil embargo was seamless, the sanctions were working. And they should have been allowed to continue to work. With every passing day, they squeezed Iraq tighter and denied Saddam any fruit from his conquest.

Yet, after economic pressure had been tried only a few months, Bush abruptly gave up on the policy last fall, and set about launching a war.

The war was splendid; the aftermath has been less so. More than a million refugees are suffering terribly, and Bush faces criticism for encouraging and then abandoning the insurrection against Saddam.

So what's the plan now?

Bush still wants to get rid of Saddam, the administration explains, but involving America in war is not the way to accomplish that. Better to apply an arms embargo and economic sanctions incorporated in the United Nations cease-fire resolution. These will encourage Iraqis to replace Saddam.

This policy, of course, sounds much like the one Bush dismissed as ineffective when he decided to go to war.

So, better forget the assertion that sanctions don't work.

And why not? We've just won a great victory. A few months have passed. Times change.

by CNB