For US politicians, their dream of ditching Iraqi President Saddam Hussein proved nothing less than a miscalculation
     after 10 years.

     Decade-long economic sanctions against Iraq did not produce the result that the United States and its allies sought.
     Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, a thorn in the eyes of Americans, remains in power while Iraq's anti-US sentiment
     heated up as harsh sanctions meant deprivation of many of life's necessities for millions of Iraqis.

     The sanctions, imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, have also meant a lack of trade, draining the country's
     economy and pushing Iraqis into further economic turmoil.

     While Washington repeatedly claims that its embargo is targeted at Saddam Hussein and not his countrymen, the fact is
     the embargo is harming ordinary civilians. But it has failed to render impotent "the vicious leaders of the Iraqi regime,"
     to use Washington's description.

     Washington's connivance with Baghdad's opposition parties to force Hussein to step down seems to become more
     illusory as time goes by.

     Each year, the United States spends at least US$2 million on average to try to contain Iraq.

     In 1998, the US Congress made US$97 million available to the opposition, mostly in the form of services and surplus
     goods provided by the Pentagon.

     Last year, it began its first, direct, although modest and "non-lethal," military training of opponents of Saddam Hussein
     at a Florida Air Force base.

     Four Iraqis, including two former military officers who defected from Hussein's forces, attended a regular
     civilian-military training course for officers from Arab and Central Asian countries near Pensacola.

     Daniel Pipes, a veteran Middle East observer, told Reuters he was struck by how little things have changed in Iraq over
     the past decade.

     His remarks were partially right. Baghdad has changed little, and its leadership remains intact. But Iraqis are undergoing
     untold suffering.

     Sanctions did not bring the Iraqi people the benefits that Britain and the United States promised, such as "freedom".

     Iraq's "human rights record" did not improve, but deteriorated substantially.

     Five thousand Iraqi children die each month from diseases and malnutrition because the sanctions have been a barrier
     to medical supplies getting into the country.

     Ordinary Iraqi citizens are more likely to fall prey to sanctions and military strikes. This is the hard truth.

     Hansvon Sponeck of Germany and Dennis Halliday of Ireland, the last two United Nations humanitarian co-ordinators
     for Iraq, attest to what ordinary Iraqis have suffered. They resigned last year under strong US pressure because they
     shined a spotlight on the toll sanctions have taken on Iraqi civilians.

     Debate over whether sanctions are effective was louder among US politicians during the 10th anniversary of US
     military action against Iraq.

     But it seems the issue is hardly mentioned by US presidential candidates.

     Why?

     The topic is so sensitive that candor or any frank discussion might spell trouble. No candidate likes to comment on
     something that has dim prospects.

     US authorities are in a Catch-22 situation: If the United States and its allies lifted sanctions which most UN members
     oppose, it would constitute a tacit admission that sanctions have failed.

     This is the last thing US President Bill Clinton wants. If they continue their containment policy, they must be
     psychologically prepared to handle domestic and foreign pressure.

     Sentiment against sanctions has erupted into protests and even violence in even the United States.

     Protesters from Illinois, Minnesota and New Hampshire began a hunger strike several weeks ago in Baghdad to
     commemorate the 10th anniversary of the imposition of the crippling trade embargo.

     Last week, 102 protesters demonstrated against sanctions in front of the White House.

     Washington's containment policy is likened by protesters to a similar catastrophe that shares this anniversary: the United
     States dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.

     Clinton's strategy to weaken Saddam Hussein whom he thought would then be toppled by internal forces did not bring
     him to his knees.

     US policy-makers believe the United States will ultimately win this "war."

     But it seems that the United States has not learned that its containment policy is a failure.

     The Cold War mentality still dominates the United States.

     The containment policy was also carried out against Yugoslavia, which Washington is also loath to recognize.

     US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright last month asked Montenegro's leader to think carefully about a planned
     boycott of Yugoslav elections over fears they will be unfair.

     In Washington's view, Montenegro could play a key role in helping Serbian opposition unite to challenge Yugoslav
     strongman Slobodan Milosevic.

     Using the same tactics it applied in Iraq, Washington channeled a lot of money to Belgrade's opposition parties to
     overthrow Milosevic.

     But only time will tell if this dirty strategy can help dump Milosevic, whom Washington brands "a dictator."

     But unlike before, Washington appears to have toned down its rhetoric this time.

     It has failed in Iraq, but it cannot bear to see its authority being challenged in Yugoslavia again.

     Clinton is not willing to risk his carefully cultivated image as a world leader in Belgrade again.

     But US authorities should ponder whether its containment policy works.

     Washington's political ambitions have come at a high price for millions of innocent people.

     Even though Iraq and Belgrade authorities have both made some very "bad" judgments, that happened in the past.

     If Milosevic was as "bad" as US politicians have asserted, why is he still ahead in every domestic public-opinion poll?

     Who should be the leader of Iraq or Yugoslavia is a matter for the people of those two nations. It is not the business of
     the United States.