Yes, It Was a Mistake to Leave Him in Power : One way or the other, Hussein must go

Saddam Hussein has changed tactics in the now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t nuclear shell game he has been playing with international inspectors in Iraq. Denial, delay and obstructionism all having failed, the Iraqi dictator now admits that he has been pursuing a secret nuclear development program after all, and he has turned over to the United Nations what he says is a full list of his nuclear sites and equipment. The next step is supposed to see the destruction or confiscation of this material. But that’s possible only if the international inspectors are sure they know where everything is. Has Iraq in fact now revealed all there is to be known about its nuclear efforts?

HIS WORTHLESS WORD: Baghdad’s latest claims of complete candor are likely to be believed only by the sublimely credulous. Others must be deeply skeptical.

It’s now obvious that Iraq had a much larger nuclear program than suspected; it would be folly to believe that it’s not trying to hide as much as possible of what survives. Hussein’s “personal assurances” that Iraq will cooperate fully with U.N. requirements to destroy its nuclear capability mean nothing; he is a habitual liar whose sworn word is worthless. All of which leaves Iraq’s neighbors, the Iraqi people and the United States and its coalition partners with a mounting problem.

The problem is that it would be not just a mistake but self-defeating to lift the economic sanctions against Iraq so long as there is reason to believe that it may be cheating on its U.N.-demanded obligations. How long will reason to believe that remain? Realistically, so long as Saddam Hussein--whose entire career is built on fraud and deception--remains in power. So the sanctions must stay as long as Hussein stays. To say that, though, is to acknowledge that the long-suffering Iraqi people are fated to suffer still more, because a boycott that prevents Baghdad from selling its oil in world markets denies it the income it needs to import necessary food and medicine.

It’s a terrible dilemma. Hussein simply can’t be trusted, whether to keep his word not to butcher Iraq’s Kurds or to cooperate with U.N. resolutions. And because he can’t be trusted, innocent Iraqis will go hungry and some will die. What’s the way out? The feasible solution is the obvious one. One way or another, he must be swept from power.

HIS ENDLESS CRUELTY: The Bush Administration tried to do just that, even though it denies using the means it in fact embraced. Before the war began in January it implicitly encouraged Iraq’s military to assassinate Hussein. During the fighting the United States and its allies targeted every building and bunker where Hussein might be hiding. Perhaps if the decision had been made in February to pursue the ground war a little longer, if allied armies had been ordered to push north across virtually undefended territory to Baghdad, Hussein’s ouster would have been achieved. But at the time the most humane and prudent course, which we endorsed and which President Bush still says was the right one, seemed to be to halt the ground fighting after 100 hours.

A mistake? If nothing else, hindsight supports the view that it was a mistake to leave Hussein in power. For left in power he has been free to crush the domestic opposition to his rule, free to try to deceive the United Nations about the full extent of his nuclear weapons program, free to use the cruelty and deception he is infamous for to hold on to power.

At some point, and probably through violence, which is Iraq’s traditional way of changing leaders, Saddam Hussein will go. Conceivably his successor will be no better morally, though it’s hard to imagine that he could be any worse. In any event we can only hope that change comes very soon, for the sake of the Iraqi people, Iraq’s neighbors and a more secure world.