DATE: Friday, November 21, 1997             TAG: 9711210037

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B10  EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Editorial 

                                            LENGTH:   68 lines

SADDAMMED IF YOU DO... NO IDEAL CHOICES

Saddam Hussein has tested the bars of his prison and has found them too secure to permit escape. He, therefore, appears to be backing down. Until next time.

The episode has been instructive. It appears that only the United States and Britain retain the will to do whatever is necessary to keep the tyrant caged. Luckily that has proved sufficient, this time. But the inclination to loosen up by others is a warning for the future.

It is astonishing that Saddam's neighbors should be so complacent. The details regarding his program to develop weapons of mass destruction are sobering. And there is one school of thought that contends the current crisis was precipitated when inspectors got close to secret laboratories or weapons stockpiles. That could mean Saddam is backing down because he has used the interval to evade detection.

Saddam's willingness to place women and children on bombing targets as a human shield is another reminder not to underestimate his ruthlessness.

Many believe that the ire of the West worries him far less than the ire of Iran, the enemy he fought so brutally in the 1980s. If Saddam believes the only way to deter the Iranians is to retain the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, he may be prepared to face the bombs of America.

Though polls showed enthusiasm for teaching Saddam a lesson, there is no constituency in this country for the kind of sacrifice it would require to go to Baghdad on the ground. And even if there were, doing so unilaterally would unify Islamic opinion against us. Among the many bad consequences could be the elevation of Iran to regional superpower status.

One alternative to conquest and subjugation of Iraq by a Western ground force is a campaign of bombardment meant to destroy Saddam's assets and kill him. But if the barrage of the Persian Gulf war failed to do that, chances of success now are no better.

Another alternative is assassination, but the West has been encouraging that for years with no takers. Or none left alive anyway. Saddam is a survivor.

In a world of limited options and considerable constraints, several goals have to be kept in mind simultaneously.

Saddam must be kept in a box that limits his ability to threaten his neighbors. He doesn't have to be conquered.

The West must maintain access to Middle Eastern oil, so keeping control of Saddam must be done in such a way as to keep the oil from his neighbors flowing. That requires their acquiescence in any policy, if not their overt support and participation.

The security of Israel must be assured. Getting the peace process back on track would give Saddam one less card to play against the West.

Together those considerations point to a policy that continues to insist on U.N. inspections of Saddam's weapons program but is prepared for him to keep testing our resolve without overreacting.

Recalcitrance should be met with a steady escalation of pressure and imposition of further restrictions on Saddam. Several possibilities were suggested during this stand off: Extending the no-fly zone to the entire country, an embargo on travel by government officials, a no-drive policy for ground forces. Saddam's remaining air defense and military assets could also be taken out.

There is no ideal solution, but it should be possible to keep Saddam boxed, without encouraging extremists in the region or fostering Arab solidarity unwarranted by Saddam's character.

And that is apparently going to be required since Saddam shows no sign of going quietly. But sooner or later, old dictators simply fade away. Or let their guard down. The goal of any policy should be to outlast Saddam while preventing him from increasing his power to make mischief or disrupt the region.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu