‘Serious Consequences’: If Clinton Means It, Here’s the Alternative to His Failed Strategy of ‘Containing’ Saddam

(Washington, D.C.): If the past seven years have taught us nothing else, one lesson is clear:
Saddam will never permit his weapons of mass destruction programs to be permanently
eliminated. As a result, the agreement forged by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is
doomed
to fail. To be sure, Saddam may comply with the agreement initially — during the period when
President Clinton is “testing” his compliance. This is particularly true to the extent that there
continue to be indications that the sanctions regime will be lifted. In due course, however, Iraqi
cheating will occur. It will involve interference with the inspection regime (at first at the margin,
then in material ways) and/or circumventing it via continued covert production and stockpiling of
chemical, biological and/or nuclear arms and weapons with which to deliver them.

Thus, even if there were no new problems arising from the language of the text or the
as-yet-unfinished “detailed procedures” — and there certainly appear to be grounds for serious
concern
about at least some of these scores⁽¹⁾ — the UN-brokered
deal would be a mug’s game for the
United States. America’s vital interests in the Persian Gulf and beyond will not be safeguarded by
this new Chamberlainesque formula for “peace in our time.” The aggressive multilateralists who
evince such sympathy for Saddam’s sensibilities about Iraqi “sovereignty” and security cannot be
relied upon to look after ours.

It behooves the United States to pursue a dramatically different course. And there is
an
emerging consensus that Saddam Hussein and his ruling clique must be removed from
power. Even one of the U.S. Senate’s most liberal members, Sen. John Kerry
(D-MA),
endorsed this idea in an interview on ABC New’s “This Week” program last Sunday. He said:
“We have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt
[Saddam’s] regime and to encourage the forces of democracy.”

For several months, Steve Forbes — an ever-more influential figure in
Republican circles — has
been arguing for a similar course of action. Yesterday, he endorsed the href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=98-D_33at”>attached letter for
implementing the program that has been developed by a distinguished bipartisan group led by
former Representative Stephen Solarz, Democrat from New York, and
President Reagan’s
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, Richard Perle.

The Bottom Line

Yesterday, President Clinton declared that “Whether [the policy of containing Saddam]
should
continue to be our strategy depends in no small measure, I believe, on whether this agreement is
honored.” Since this agreement will not be honored, the building blocks for
implementing the
strategy recommended by the Solarz-Perle group and Steve Forbes — starting with the
establishment of a provisional government drawing upon the principles and leaders of the Iraqi
National Congress — should be implemented at once.

– 30 –

1. These include the expanded opportunity provided for Russian and
other diplomats sympathetic
to Iraq to sabotage the work of the newly constituted “Special Group” and the UNSCOM
inspectors. This has been a serious problem, to date, as noted in the Center’s Decision
Brief
entitled Accept No Substitutes: Clinton Address on Iraq Signals Continuing Failure
to Grasp
Need for Toppling Saddam (No. 98-D 29, 17
February 1998).