TIME - Man of the Year/CompactPublishing-TimeMagazine-TimeManOfTheYear-Win31MSDOS.iso/moy/083192/08319927.000

Text File | 1993-04-08 | 5.6 KB | 117 lines

                                                                                IRAQ, Page 47

Boxing In Saddam


A ban on Iraqi flights over the southern marshes is the Bush
Administration's latest military -- and political -- battle
plan

By JILL SMOLOWE --With reporting by William Mader/London
and Bruce van Voorst/Washington


    Every time George Bush conjures up the triumph of Desert
Storm, a nasty fact bedevils him: the tyrant still holds vicious
sway in Baghdad. There's no question the President would like
to show Saddam that there are limits to his misbehavior, and
last week he looked like he was about to teach him that lesson.
First came a New York Times story that claimed Bush planned to
provoke a confrontation over weapons inspections, a
confrontation exquisitely timed to take place while the
Republicans met in Houston. The idea was for a U.N. team in
Baghdad to show up at a military ministry and demand entry; if
Saddam balked, the allies would fire cruise missiles at selected
targets. But the U.N. team, perhaps embarrassed by the publicity
or unwilling to look like a U.S. pawn, quietly wrapped up
business, pronounced its mission a success and left.

    Bush and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney furiously denied
the Times story and the implication that the President would
attack Saddam to give himself a boost in the polls. But the two
men were being disingenuous in their categorical dismissal of
the Times report, since there was a secret scheme to attack
Saddam if the U.N. team's mission had ended in failure. A few
days later, the allies announced plans to carve out a security
zone in southern Iraq, home of a persistent Shi`ite insurgency,
that would be off limits to Saddam's combat aircraft. "We are
not doing this for no good reason," British Prime Minister John
Major explained. "It's happening because there is clear
evidence now of the systematic murder, genocide, of the
Shi`ites."

    The plight of the Shi`ites is serious, but the note of
selfless compassion did not quite ring true. Just 17 months ago,
when Saddam was ruthlessly crushing their rebellion in the
south, Western leaders stood by and did nothing. At the time,
they argued plausibly if heartlessly that an allied
intervention risked both a military quagmire and an unstable
partition of Iraq that could extend Iran's influence in the
region. Neither prospect has disappeared. With Bush in Houston
trying to reinvigorate his political fortunes, it was impossible
to escape cynical questions about what was for real -- and what
was for political effect. No more convincing was the sudden
European eagerness to provide air protection to Iraqi Muslims
solely on humanitarian grounds; Europeans have not yet made a
similar commitment to the Slavic Muslims in neighboring Bosnia.

    Why the sharp turnaround, and why now? It appears the
West's steeliness is more reactive than provocative. For months,
Western patience with Iraq has been wearing thin. Since January,
Sad dam has tweaked his enemies time and again, counting on
Bush, Major and French President Francois Mitterrand to be too
distracted by domestic issues to respond. "Saddam concluded that
with all its problems, the West lacked the stomach to go to war
with him again," says a senior British diplomat. "He saw that
as an excellent opportunity to push his luck."

    And push he did. Early in the year, he deployed 15
divisions along the internal border with the Kurdish-held north.
More recently he reportedly stepped up attacks on the Shi`ite
south, draining wells and defoliating the marshlands to target
rebel enclaves better. Saddam also thumbed his nose at the
international community, impeding the work of U.N. inspection
teams, blocking aid convoys and attacking U.N. guards.

    Then came the standoff last month at the Agriculture
Ministry when the Iraqi leader refused to let a U.N. team
through the doors. According to Pentagon officials, infuriated
allies were on the brink of launching strikes against military
targets around Baghdad. At the last moment Sad dam backed down,
but the victory proved hollow when the U.N. allowed him to
dictate who could enter the ministry. Soon after, British
diplomats say, allied leaders determined that whatever the next
provocation, they would issue an ultimatum, then strike if
Saddam did not comply.

    Plan A called for the next U.N. inspection team to enter
an off-limits Iraqi ministry. Anticipating Saddam's refusal, a
special U.S. Air Force air-control group was dispatched to
Saudi Arabia to guide the expected aerial attacks. When press
leaks last week forced the mission to abort, the mounting
atrocities in the south came into focus as an attractive
alternative. Plan B calls for establishing the "no-fly zone"
over the Shi`ite marshes. U.S. officials say an ultimatum will
be issued this week giving Saddam just 24 hours to clear the
southern airspace. The stated purpose is to insure unimpeded
reconnaissance missions, but if Saddam dares to field his air
force, said National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, "then we
will take appropriate countermeasures."

    The political objectives are less clear. Is this just
another shot at weakening Sad dam, or do the allies hope it
might provoke a coup? Given the talk of genocide, does the
mission imply a long-term commitment to insure the safety of
Shi`ites? In the wake of Desert Storm, the West put a premium
on keeping Iraq intact for fear of sparking destabilizing
Kurdish and Shi`ite rebellions. Today Western leaders are
willing to take a calculated risk with Iraq's integrity, as long
as Saddam is put in his place.