Keeping Saddam In His Box

Excerpted from EmergencyNet News Service
09/06/96 - Vol. 2, No. 250

KEEPING SADDAM IN HIS BOX
By Steve Macko, ENN Editor

The United States this past week extended its line in the sane right up to Baghdad. Said one Pentagon official this week, "The United States is no longer willing to act just around the periphery of Iraq -- in the Kurdish north or the Shi'ite south. We are now prepared to respond to attacks to the center."

After Iraq's paranoid, brutal leader was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S.-led coalition decided not to move on Baghdad, even though it was perfectly capable of doing so. The fear, at the time, was that the U.S. would be sucked into a quagmire of Iraq's deeply divided politics. Right or wrong, it seemed to just about everyone that it was not in anyone's best interest if Iraq was broken into several pieces. So, the terms of the United Nations cease-fire after the Gulf War called for the coalition to keep its distance away from Baghdad.

The U.S. this week expanded the southern "no-fly" zone from the 32nd parallel to the 33rd parallel. This will new expanded exclusion zone will now take U.S. warplanes right up to the suburbs to Baghdad, where Saddam will, himself, be able to hear the U.S. planes fly overhead or enjoy their sonic booms.

If one were to really analyze the response of the United States, one can see the new strategic advantages. It does give much better protection to U.S. interests located south of Iraq, namely the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields. However, when dealing with the likes of Saddam, there are always some risks.

Henri Barkey, an expert on Iraq and the Kurds at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, said, "There is enormous potential for escalation because Iraq may decide to challenge the United States on territory most familiar to Saddam. There are a number of things he can do to escalate the conflict within Iraq itself, such as if he tried to fly civilian aircraft over the new 'no-fly' area. Or he might try to do something that he thinks could only be responded to if the U.S. increased its involvement -- which he knows the U.S. is intent on avoiding."

The U.S. explicitly chose not to strike at Iraq's military forces near Irbil, in the northern part of the country. The U.S. decided on the second choice that was easier to achieve and much more valuable in the long-term. The U.S. turned Iraqi tactical aggression in the north and converted it into a strategic loss to Saddam in the south. Thus, this will hopefully make it easier to keep Saddam contained in a smaller box.

Many military analysts say, however, that this week's missile attacks are hardly likely going to keep Saddam from creating mischief. The loss of some key military assets, including two air fields, are not likely to have a great effect.

Brent Scowcroft, who was the national security advisor for President George Bush during the 1991 Gulf War, said, "The U.S. attack struck a relatively small number of air defense targets, not large troop concentrations, much less the elite Republican Guard units, which are both the spearhead of the attack against Irbil and the core of Saddam's support. It remains to be seen whether the somewhat circumscribed, low- risk attack we launched succeeds in sending the high-fidelity message we intend to be heard in Baghdad."

The U.S. fired 44 cruise missiles at targets in southern Iraq. In effect, it could be said that the U.S. had effectively abandoned the very people that the attack was meant to ostensibly address -- the Kurds. One Pentagon official said, "The message is that the United States is now going to orient our acts toward our strategic and economic interests, which are in the Persian Gulf states to the south."

Actually, what it really boils down to is that Washington is exasperated by the Kurds, who have been given more than $300 million in U.S. humanitarian aid in recent years. Some experts say that infighting between the two Kurdish groups, the KDP and the PUK, is really about who gets the smuggling rights in northern Iraq.

An unnamed senior White House official said, "After five years of very intense good faith efforts, which involved creating a U.N. guard corps to protect the Kurds, helping convoys deliver food, building bridges for relief agencies in 1992 when Saddam was trying to starve them out, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into redevelopment after the 1991 fighting and months of U.S. diplomatic mediation between the two factions, there has been a fundamental change. One faction decided to throw in its lot with Saddam Hussein. That was the key fact in Saddam's decision to move. We also have to consider it when we decide what to do."

But leaving the Kurds to fight it out is bad for the region as a whole. The Kurds are causing friction in other countries, such as Turkey and Iran and even into Syria and some of the former Soviet republics. Things are not getting better. On Thursday, Turkey decided that it had enough of some of the Kurds and went into northern Iraq looking for PKK members and bases. ENN will further explore who and what the Kurds are, in another article, in a few days.

Meanwhile, in other news regarding the Iraq situation on Thursday, U.S. warplanes patrolled the skies of southern Iraq with challenge. U.S. intelligence is indicating that Iraq's troops were withdrawing from the Kurdish region in the north.

Speaking before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, CIA Director John Deutch said, "The most recent intelligence indicates his troops and motorized tank units are withdrawing from Irbil and the northern Iraqi frontier."

However, the BBC reported on Friday morning that the U.S. intelligence reports of the Iraqis were not true. About 15 miles south of Irbil, Iraqi forces were seen digging trenches and it looked like that they were planning on staying in the area for a period of time.

There were some reports of fighting in northern Iraq, but it was not certain if Iraqi forces were involved. A spokesman for the U.S. Central Command said on Thursday that the U.S. military does not see any Iraqi involvement in the latest clash. The spokesman said, "Some activity that is being seen is the Iraqis returning to garrison."

Reaction to Saddam was still being voiced in Washington. Senator Richard Luger reiterated his position about Saddam. The senator said, "What is clear is Saddam Hussein had not been discouraged by our attacks. ... We have to make certain he is badly crippled."

U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher tried to convince the French government to join in on the overflights in the new expanded "no-fly" zone. But the French are still hesitant. It was being said that what is foreshadowing the French decision is that apparently France has a large economic stake in Iraq, and once again it would appear that the French are putting their economic interests first, instead of what is best for the overall good of containing a criminal such as Saddam Hussein. The same can be said for French acts and opinions towards the rogue state of Iran.

State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns said that the U.S. will not back down in the face of any criticism in the manner of handling the likes of Saddam Hussein. Burns said, "We are accomplishing our objectives. If we have to do it alone, or alone with the British, we will do it."

Return to the Military Operations Page