http://www.thestate.com/opinion/fitts/iraq.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember the celebrated victory in the Persian Gulf War?
There were parades everywhere, joyous pictures of victorious troops in the
great alliance against Iraq and gruesome photos of the destruction rained
down on Baghdad's forces. Democracy (for men only, to this day) was restored
to a grateful Kuwait.

Why, then, hasn't this war ended?

The air campaign against Iraq was launched more than nine years ago -- a span

of time greater than the period of overt U.S. ground involvement in Vietnam.
And it continues.

U.S. and British pilots cruise over no-fly zones in both northern and
southern Iraq in a simmering conflict, its rules followed by rote. Iraq makes

a threatening gesture toward an aircraft, perhaps turning on a missile radar;

the allies retaliate by attacking a target selected long ago, probably
unrelated to the offense that spurred the attack run. And so it goes, until
the next time.

U.S. planners developed this low-intensity conflict to rob Iraq of its
military resources, slowly bleeding it until a coup or other indirect action
can end the conflict.

And yet there are no tangible results. The U.S. Air Force says otherwise, but

there is no outward evidence. It's hard to believe this thousand-pinpricks
approach will destabilize the Iraqi regime.

Iraq claimed this month that the attacks have killed 295 civilians, with many

more hurt. That's certainly exaggerated, but there has to have been a
civilian toll.

Still the war goes on, unnoticed in the United States.

An almost-total embargo of Iraq also continues, despite the opposition of
many U.S. allies. Average Iraqis suffer greatly from this, especially those
needing medical care. Iraq's elite, however, profits by controlling the black

market that the embargo creates.

If this is bothering Iraq's rulers, it's hard to see how.

United Nations inspections of Iraq, designed to halt its production of
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, have not been conducted in a year.
There is no sign the Iraqis will let the inspectors back in any time soon.

The United States again is encouraging dissident Iraqis to lead a coup
against Baghdad, as we did earlier in the decade. It didn't work before, and
there's no indication that anything will come of it now or later. Having the
United States as an oppressor seems to strengthen the Baghdad regime and
taint any outside force the West supports.

In short, nothing regarding Iraq implies any resolution soon.

Still, after nine years, the United States does not have (to use a trendy
phrase of the '90s) an exit strategy for Iraq.

The problem is the man in charge, Saddam Hussein.

President Bush personalized the war against Iraq, made it a crusade against
one evil dictator. The United States essentially declared war on one guy, but

we didn't get him. Using a variety of evasions, Saddam survived the war, the
rebellions afterward and every attempt made since to get rid of him.

I'm not sure that sending the allied armies on to Baghdad in 1991 would have
made the situation better, either. If the West had conquered Baghdad, it
would likely have found itself policing a country dissolving into chaos, the
Balkan quagmire doubled.

Assassination is a popular cure for the Saddam headache: Kill the designated
villain and go home. There are many legal and moral objections, but my first
is more practical: It wouldn't work. It either fails against Saddam's many
layers of security, or it kills him, almost certainly leaving someone from
his clan (one of his sons, likely) in charge of the government. The successor

would be ready to put down any rebellion, then seek revenge. On we go.

But there are good reasons to fix the Iraq mess.

The humanitarian problems created by the embargo dilute any moral message
sent by "standing up to Saddam." Keeping the failed embargo in place is seen
as U.S. heartlessness, not strength. We assign all the blame for the embargo
and its costs to Saddam's regime, and most of it belongs there. But the
United States has a moral obligation to lift a totally ineffective embargo
that has been costing lives for nine years.

Also, our military forces are taxed by long deployments in Turkey and Saudi
Arabia, which could be reduced if the no-fly zone were ended. Our troops have

served bravely in the region, but I wonder if they are in love with this
never-ending schedule of deployments for a policy that offers no hint of
success.

It won't be easy to fix our Iraq policy. The United States would have to
reach a compromise with those on the Security Council who want the embargo to

end. Trade with oil-rich Iraq could be resumed, which most world powers want,

without allowing huge new military exports to Iraq, which virtually no one
wants. Some weapons would be smuggled in, but that is likely happening
already along the unpatrolled Jordanian border.

Would Iraq still be a threat to peace? Yes, but that state of affairs is
unlikely to change soon. The U.S. campaigns against Saddam have reduced that
to a manageable threat, in the way that North Korea or Libya is. Nothing
short of a second war will end that threat.

As President Clinton pursues a way through foreign policy to patch together a

positive legacy, he could do the next White House occupant a favor by ending
this failed policy, before it stretches to Cuba-like proportions.

I'll bet those men seeking to succeed him do not look forward to inheriting
the current Iraq standoff -- especially the contender named Bush. This is one

problem he would secretly be glad to see Clinton fix, even if politics pushed

him to criticize the action. After all, who wants to be inaugurated as
president in time for Saddam's 10th anniversary victory-over-the-West parade?

Mr. Fitts can be reached at (803) 771-8467
or at mfitts@thestate.com.