TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2000 [Jacksonville Daily News, Covering Coastal
              Carolina]

              Approach to Iraq in need of revision

              In a strange sort of way, Iraq has become an indispensable nation. What
              would American politicians do without having Saddam Hussein's regime to kick
              around?

              Ten years after the United States pummeled Iraq during the Gulf War, U.S.
              leaders from both major parties show no signs of letting up on the Middle
              Eastern nation.

              U.S. and British bombing attacks continue along the two "no-fly zones" --
              arbitrary lines designed to protect Shiite minorities in the south and Kurds
              in the north.

              Published reports suggest that more than 20,000 sorties have flown over Iraq
              in the past two years.

              Meanwhile, the United Nations Security Council hasn't budged from its deadly
              campaign -- waged at the insistence of the United States -- of economic
              sanctions against the Iraqi people even though UNICEF and other sources say
              that at least 5,000 Iraqi children perish each month because of them.

              Chalk it up to coincidence, perhaps, but the so-called "Iraqi threat"
              sometimes raises its head at opportune times for American politicians.

              There was the bombing of Iraq just in time to delay the impeachment vote of
              President Clinton.

              Now, as the 2000 presidential campaign heats up, both leading candidates are
              trying to outdo themselves in showing how tough they are on rogue regimes.
              Sure enough, another crisis is emerging -- just as some observers have been
              predicting.

              The latest controversy centers around the newly formed U.N. Monitoring,
              Verification and Inspection Commission, which has been established to
              replace UNSCOM, which had withdrawn from Iraq two years ago under a cloud of
              controversy.

              Although the new inspection group is expected to be less confrontational
              than the last one, the Iraqi government has refused to cooperate. The
              Clinton administration told the Associated Press that it will not do
              anything if the Iraqis resist UNMOVIC. But officials have issued their
              strong support for the new U.N. mandate.

              While the United States is stuck in the same old threaten-bomb-and-sanction
              mode toward Iraq, with neither major presidential candidate willing to
              question the approach, more sensible voices are demanding a change.

              Seventy members of Congress have signed a letter asking the administration
              to end sanctions against Iraq.

              Officials who have administered the oil-for-food program and who have been
              involved in the inspections process are starting to speak out also.

              Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter is one of the latest officials to
              argue that it's time for a new policy.

              "Ritter says what we've all known, that Iraq is effectively disarmed,"
              points out Hussein Ibish, media director for the American-Arab
              Anti-Discrimination Committee in Washington, D.C. Even when the United
              States led a war against Iraq, Ibish pointed out, the Iraqi regime did not
              use its weapons of mass destruction.

              Which leaves one wondering -- given that even Arab nations that truly are
              vulnerable to Iraqi attacks want an end to the U.S. sanctions policy. And
              given that the United States doesn't insist on never-ending inspections of
              other onerous regimes.

              It's time U.S. politicians found a way to look tough without posturing about
              Saddam.