WASHINGTON, February 10: The stated American End Game in Iraq -- eliminating its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons potential. The unstated scenario -- removal from power of President Saddam Hussein -- even if it involves killing him.Amid a rising crescendo of rhetoric and war talk, US lawmakers and officials are quietly debating the propriety of physically eliminating the leader of a country -- something Washington officially deleted from its agenda in the 1970s.
Although the Clinton administration has taken the official position that it is only mandated to take out Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, some lawmakers have in private shown the spirit of football hooligans and sought the blood and body of the Iraqi leader. Several Republicans want President Clinton to combine any military action against Iraq with a broad, sustained effort to undermine the regime of President Saddam Hussein -- even eliminate him.
The most vocal among them, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, has called onthe US military to take out every target and hope that you can put a missile down in an event or a building where Saddam Hussein is. Although Lott subsequently denied that he was advocating assassination, he said he wanted the situation to develop where "Saddam Hussein would not be head of that country causing his people pain and suffering."
In a series of speeches and news conferences, Lott and other key GOP members warned that airstrikes alone would not be enough to topple Saddam Hussein, and accused the administration of lacking or failing to articulate a broader policy to achieve that objective. "What is the end game?... What's going to be our position when (military action) is over if Saddam Hussein is still there?... What's the long-term plan to fundamentally change the situation in the Persian Gulf?" Lott asked.
But Clinton has been circumspect, saying it is against US policy to design military plans aimed specifically at killing world leaders. He was referring to an executive order signed byPresident Gerald Ford -- sometime after the assassination in Chile of Salvadore Allende in 1973 -- which explicitly forbids political assassinations and says it goes against foreign policy interests. Besides, the US has never lived down several clumsy and hamhanded attempts to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro.
"Would the Iraqi people be better off of there were a change in leadership? I certainly think they would be. But that is not what the United Nations has authorised us to do," Clinton said. "It's against the law." Republican Senator Olympia Snowe agreed, referring to the indirect calls of a physical extermination.
But other lawmakers are arguing though that military operations targeting foreign leaders is not tantamount to assassination, pointing out to the 1986 US strike against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. A bombing attack on Gaddafi's home killed his daughter. Faced now with general disapproval of their bloodthirsty rhetoric and lack of international support for US action, lawmakers are nowpushing for several specific steps falling somewhere "between pure diplomacy and military action" involving US ground troops. The military action must seek to "inflict serious damage" on the Iraqi Republican Guard, the palaces that Saddam Hussein is trying to protect from UN inspectors and public as well as military communications. Politically, the US should organise support for democratic dissidents, expand of no-fly and no-drive zones, jam of Iraqi broadcasts and create a "Radio Free Iraq" to foment internal opposition, lawmakers say.
But the administration is hamstrung by complete lack of support, if not outright rejection, of its military aims. Only Kuwait among Arab/Persian Gulf states has supported the US and even long time allies like Egypt nd Saudi Arabia have turned their backs on a military strike. Russian President Boris Yeltsin referred again yesterday to the prospect of a "world war" if Washington pressed ahead with a military solution. Among Western allies, only Germany and Australia (besidesBritain of course) have offered support in the event of a military operation. Even Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, considered a hawk on the matter, has ruled out any massive military invasion of Iraq. "The administration does not agree with those who suggest we should deploy hundreds of thousands of American troops to engage militarily in a ground war in Iraq," she said in a speech in Washington on Monday.
However, Pentagon said yesterday it will send up to 3,000 US ground troops to the Persian Gulf region "to discourage any creative thinking" by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
