Salon Newsreal | Target: Saddam

A L S O +T O D A Y

No mercy
By Marc Herman
California Gov. Pete Wilson is unlikely to grant clemency to a Thai national on death row, despite appeals from jurors, lawyers and the warden of San Quentin

Beware of the black CON-servative
By C.D. Ellison
An African-American Republican talks back to David Horowitz

Paula Jones lawsuit settled
Salon Staff Report
Clinton coughs up $850,000, but no apologies

T A B L E+T A L K
Newt resigns! Mull over the soon-to-be-former speaker's decision in the Headlines area of Table Talk

R E C E N T L Y
He can't go home again
By Marc Cooper
No matter what the House of Lords decides, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet is finally being held resonsible for the death of President Salvador Allende -- and Chilean democracy
(11/12/98)
The costs of Mitch
By Mary Jo McConahay
Can a hurricane threaten the fragile new democracies of Central America?
(11/12/98)
A day to remember?
By Jeff Stein
Police and federal agents brace for violence as anti-abortion forces observe a new "holiday"
(11/11/98)
Can we talk?
By Rebecca Bryant
Gay rights groups should rethink their drive for affirmation at the ballot box after Tuesday's drubbing
(11/10/98)
Newtron Bomb
By Bruce Shapiro
Will Gingrich's self-purge save the Republican Party?
(11/06/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

S A L O N
E M P O R I U M
FREE! 12-ounce bag of Salon Blend with a purchase of $30 or more. While supplies last.

spacer

TARGET: SADDAM | PAGE 1, 2
- - - - - - - - - -
Why do we keep threatening him instead of acting? We sound like the three little pigs.
You want to give him time to stew about when and where an attack will come. And you want someone close to Saddam to conclude, "This guy is more dangerous to my health than he is providing benefits, so I'm going to pull a pistol and put a 9 mm bullet through his head, because my world may change in an instant flash."
So all the commentary about how little effect another attack on his buildings will have is missing the point?
That's correct. I have no doubt we will take down his infrastructure, his buildings, but that's not what really worries him.
But how can we get at his security apparatus? We failed in the past.
Government ministry buildings where the top level people work are easily identified and easy to strike. The barracks are in Baghdad -- and unfortunately they are in a residential area so it's not an easy strike. I actually hope they go after the places where they live, but again, they live with women and children and it's not a cost-free sort of attack. The ministry of the special security apparatus where they monitor telephone conversations is in Baghdad also, again near a residential area, but it's an identifiable building that can be struck. And its equipment can't be easily moved.
I thought we hit that before.
No, that was the Postal and Telegraph Ministry. The security apparatus echoes the calls through there from another building. And we've never hit that before.
Why not -- because we were tapping the lines ourselves?
Well, maybe, but probably because we didn't know about it as well before. It's become a much larger operation over the last eight years.
Let's say we take out all these important installations and even kill a handful of key security officials. Then what?
You've got to have a strategy for the morning after. You've got to lay out a political program that explains to the Iraqi people how they can get back to civilization once Saddam's gone.
What's wrong with just continuing with sanctions?
First of all, he's making $1 billion a year from oil even with the sanctions. Secondly, sanctions have decimated the middle class. Unlike the rest of the Middle East, Iraq has a middle class that's had extensive contact with Europe and the West. Not just a trader class, but doctors, scientists and technicians. These people are suffering, and I think we have failed them. We have not laid out a vision for them of how to get out of the hell that is Saddam. It's odd, because Bill Clinton is so good with words. But again, you want to bring pressure to bear that someone will actually take the action to get rid of him. Unless they understand that we're ready to reintegrate them into the rest of the world, why would they take the chance? They have to know we have our arms open.
What do we actually know about Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear capability now?
Not much more than when we last talked, on the eve of the last strikes six months ago. The reason for this is that in eight of the last 12 months, there have been no inspections.
Can he hit back at us with those weapons? In Kuwait or elsewhere?
He has a terror capability, not a military capability. He can't stand toe-to-toe with the U.S. He certainly has the capability to launch terror strikes against civilian populations. The reason for that is A) the Scuds are inaccurate, so he has to aim at big targets like cities rather than an oil well, and B) the few aircraft he has, the odds of them getting through are low, and so he has to try and sneak in and hit a city. I think the odds aren't high that they would. The last time, when they had a bigger and better air force, the pilots chose to fly to Iran and sit it out. That would be the rational choice today.
And what kind of terror tactics would he likely opt for against us?
The odds are that he's propositioned some capability in the region. And in Africa, perhaps.
What should we be looking for to come out of this bombing? How will the American people measure its success?
What we should want is to break the cycle of talking about this subject every six months. It's boring to us, but it's humiliating to the administration to be at the end of a very expensive yo-yo, sending the ships and troops out and bringing them back. I also think it's necessary for Iraq to know that they'll suffer real punishment if this goes on.
I've never thought of you as a hawk, but you seem to be saying now we have no choice but to hammer Iraq, even if there are some casualties.
Yes, I think that's the only choice we have now. The only other choice is to admit that he's won and we're not willing to pay the price. Like we did in Bosnia, and then saw the tragedy of the mortars in the marketplace.
And you now feel this is a consummate evil that we have to get rid of -- no more negotiations?
I have no doubt at all. I'm as certain of that as anything.
But the White House keeps yammering that the goal of all this is to restart inspections. That sounds ridiculous to everyone.
Inspections are gone. That should not be the end game. The end game should be the replacement of Saddam. As long as he's in power, he's going to try to obtain weapons of mass destruction, not just because he likes to have them, but because he wants to be the big man in the Middle East. He wants the U.S. out, to control all the Middle East oil. He wants to lead an Arab Middle East. The ability to intimidate is all he needs.
So why does the White House keep talking about resuming inspections?
Because this White House doesn't think in a strategic sense, they think on a case-by-case basis. It's inherent in the president, who in his career overcomes crises and is bored by anything that is long-term. It's the "War Room" mentality of the campaign trail, that you overcome an adversary battle by battle. Well, the world is not like that. You've gotta understand the end game. The War Room mentality focuses on the crisis at hand, then it's over. I think that's why after every crisis the president starts dating again [chuckles]. He's won a battle, and indulges in any behavior he can. Until the next crisis.
Where will Saddam be over the next few days and weeks?
Probably in a different bed than we expect. Saddam is not a physically courageous individual. We have some defector reports on what he did during the last bombings -- he was apparently cowering in a bunker underground. Those are images that we want to get out more. I remember the first time I went into Iraq after the war in '91 and shopkeepers were whispering to me, "Why didn't you get rid of him? You had him in the basement." So the Iraqi people can understand those images. But I don't think we should waste a single bomb targeting Saddam. If you target the instruments of his power, believe me, he'll cower in the basement. You want the Iraqi people to do it themselves.
How do you see this coming out after three days, three weeks, or whatever of bombing? Will Saddam come out of his bunker, shake his fist and say, "See, I'm still standing?"
I think that's exactly right. The real danger is if the administration doesn't have a morning-after plan. The White House can declare victory, but it's not going to be much of a victory.
How will we know we've won?
When the Iraqi people act, and get rid of him themselves.
SALON | Nov. 13, 1998
Jeff Stein covers national security issues for Salon.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R E L A T E D_.S A L O N_.S T O R I E S
Mission impossible A day in the life of a U.N. arms inspector.
By Jeff Stein
March 25, 1998

A L S O +T O D A Y No mercy By Marc Herman California Gov. Pete Wilson is unlikely to grant clemency to a Thai national on death row, despite appeals from jurors, lawyers and the warden of San Quentin Beware of the black CON-servative By C.D. Ellison An African-American Republican talks back to David Horowitz Paula Jones lawsuit settled Salon Staff Report Clinton coughs up $850,000, but no apologies T A B L E+T A L K Newt resigns! Mull over the soon-to-be-former speaker's decision in the Headlines area of Table Talk R E C E N T L Y He can't go home again By Marc Cooper No matter what the House of Lords decides, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet is finally being held resonsible for the death of President Salvador Allende -- and Chilean democracy (11/12/98) The costs of Mitch By Mary Jo McConahay Can a hurricane threaten the fragile new democracies of Central America? (11/12/98) A day to remember? By Jeff Stein Police and federal agents brace for violence as anti-abortion forces observe a new "holiday" (11/11/98) Can we talk? By Rebecca Bryant Gay rights groups should rethink their drive for affirmation at the ballot box after Tuesday's drubbing (11/10/98) Newtron Bomb By Bruce Shapiro Will Gingrich's self-purge save the Republican Party? (11/06/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S A L O N E M P O R I U M FREE! 12-ounce bag of Salon Blend with a purchase of $30 or more. While supplies last.
		TARGET: SADDAM \| PAGE 1, 2 - - - - - - - - - - Why do we keep threatening him instead of acting? We sound like the three little pigs. You want to give him time to stew about when and where an attack will come. And you want someone close to Saddam to conclude, "This guy is more dangerous to my health than he is providing benefits, so I'm going to pull a pistol and put a 9 mm bullet through his head, because my world may change in an instant flash." So all the commentary about how little effect another attack on his buildings will have is missing the point? That's correct. I have no doubt we will take down his infrastructure, his buildings, but that's not what really worries him. But how can we get at his security apparatus? We failed in the past. Government ministry buildings where the top level people work are easily identified and easy to strike. The barracks are in Baghdad -- and unfortunately they are in a residential area so it's not an easy strike. I actually hope they go after the places where they live, but again, they live with women and children and it's not a cost-free sort of attack. The ministry of the special security apparatus where they monitor telephone conversations is in Baghdad also, again near a residential area, but it's an identifiable building that can be struck. And its equipment can't be easily moved. I thought we hit that before. No, that was the Postal and Telegraph Ministry. The security apparatus echoes the calls through there from another building. And we've never hit that before. Why not -- because we were tapping the lines ourselves? Well, maybe, but probably because we didn't know about it as well before. It's become a much larger operation over the last eight years. Let's say we take out all these important installations and even kill a handful of key security officials. Then what? You've got to have a strategy for the morning after. You've got to lay out a political program that explains to the Iraqi people how they can get back to civilization once Saddam's gone. What's wrong with just continuing with sanctions? First of all, he's making $1 billion a year from oil even with the sanctions. Secondly, sanctions have decimated the middle class. Unlike the rest of the Middle East, Iraq has a middle class that's had extensive contact with Europe and the West. Not just a trader class, but doctors, scientists and technicians. These people are suffering, and I think we have failed them. We have not laid out a vision for them of how to get out of the hell that is Saddam. It's odd, because Bill Clinton is so good with words. But again, you want to bring pressure to bear that someone will actually take the action to get rid of him. Unless they understand that we're ready to reintegrate them into the rest of the world, why would they take the chance? They have to know we have our arms open. What do we actually know about Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear capability now? Not much more than when we last talked, on the eve of the last strikes six months ago. The reason for this is that in eight of the last 12 months, there have been no inspections. Can he hit back at us with those weapons? In Kuwait or elsewhere? He has a terror capability, not a military capability. He can't stand toe-to-toe with the U.S. He certainly has the capability to launch terror strikes against civilian populations. The reason for that is A) the Scuds are inaccurate, so he has to aim at big targets like cities rather than an oil well, and B) the few aircraft he has, the odds of them getting through are low, and so he has to try and sneak in and hit a city. I think the odds aren't high that they would. The last time, when they had a bigger and better air force, the pilots chose to fly to Iran and sit it out. That would be the rational choice today. And what kind of terror tactics would he likely opt for against us? The odds are that he's propositioned some capability in the region. And in Africa, perhaps. What should we be looking for to come out of this bombing? How will the American people measure its success? What we should want is to break the cycle of talking about this subject every six months. It's boring to us, but it's humiliating to the administration to be at the end of a very expensive yo-yo, sending the ships and troops out and bringing them back. I also think it's necessary for Iraq to know that they'll suffer real punishment if this goes on. I've never thought of you as a hawk, but you seem to be saying now we have no choice but to hammer Iraq, even if there are some casualties. Yes, I think that's the only choice we have now. The only other choice is to admit that he's won and we're not willing to pay the price. Like we did in Bosnia, and then saw the tragedy of the mortars in the marketplace. And you now feel this is a consummate evil that we have to get rid of -- no more negotiations? I have no doubt at all. I'm as certain of that as anything. But the White House keeps yammering that the goal of all this is to restart inspections. That sounds ridiculous to everyone. Inspections are gone. That should not be the end game. The end game should be the replacement of Saddam. As long as he's in power, he's going to try to obtain weapons of mass destruction, not just because he likes to have them, but because he wants to be the big man in the Middle East. He wants the U.S. out, to control all the Middle East oil. He wants to lead an Arab Middle East. The ability to intimidate is all he needs. So why does the White House keep talking about resuming inspections? Because this White House doesn't think in a strategic sense, they think on a case-by-case basis. It's inherent in the president, who in his career overcomes crises and is bored by anything that is long-term. It's the "War Room" mentality of the campaign trail, that you overcome an adversary battle by battle. Well, the world is not like that. You've gotta understand the end game. The War Room mentality focuses on the crisis at hand, then it's over. I think that's why after every crisis the president starts dating again [chuckles]. He's won a battle, and indulges in any behavior he can. Until the next crisis. Where will Saddam be over the next few days and weeks? Probably in a different bed than we expect. Saddam is not a physically courageous individual. We have some defector reports on what he did during the last bombings -- he was apparently cowering in a bunker underground. Those are images that we want to get out more. I remember the first time I went into Iraq after the war in '91 and shopkeepers were whispering to me, "Why didn't you get rid of him? You had him in the basement." So the Iraqi people can understand those images. But I don't think we should waste a single bomb targeting Saddam. If you target the instruments of his power, believe me, he'll cower in the basement. You want the Iraqi people to do it themselves. How do you see this coming out after three days, three weeks, or whatever of bombing? Will Saddam come out of his bunker, shake his fist and say, "See, I'm still standing?" I think that's exactly right. The real danger is if the administration doesn't have a morning-after plan. The White House can declare victory, but it's not going to be much of a victory. How will we know we've won? When the Iraqi people act, and get rid of him themselves. SALON \| Nov. 13, 1998 Jeff Stein covers national security issues for Salon. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R E L A T E D_.S A L O N_.S T O R I E S Mission impossible A day in the life of a U.N. arms inspector. By Jeff Stein March 25, 1998