A Rapidly Building Sense of Crisis : Brinkmanship in Baghdad puts the U.N. to a new test

Saddam Hussein’s gamesmanship now teeters perilously on the edge of brinkmanship. Iraq’s defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for unimpeded inspection of its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs has become contemptuous in its openness. U.N. inspectors have been detained and harassed as they seek to discover the extent of Iraq’s weapons-making capabilities and its hidden stores of arms. Vital papers and tapes have been seized from the inspectors at gunpoint. The United Nations is frustrated, none of its members more so than the United States. The sense of crisis continued to build Tuesday when Pentagon officials announced that 100 Patriot missiles and 1,300 U.S. troops would be sent back to Saudi Arabia.

HUSSEIN’S HOPE: What does the Iraqi dictator hope to achieve with his challenging behavior? The best explanation that Hussein-watchers can offer is that he hopes that by stalling for as long as possible he can wear down his international opponents. Eventually, he may calculate, they will grow weary of the contest and their attention will turn elsewhere, leaving him to rebuild a powerful arsenal undisturbed. The worst Hussein has had to endure since the war is a continuation of the U.N.-mandated boycott. That cutoff of virtually all trade with Iraq is bringing increasing pain for most Iraqis, about whom Hussein cares nothing, while leaving largely unaffected the 1.5 million favored Baath Party members who are his basis of support.

The Bush Administration had hinted a possible military response to Hussein’s intransigence. The Patriot missiles are a start. The next step could be to have U.S. planes and helicopter gunships fly escort missions over Iraqi territory so that unarmed U.N. helicopters could safely seek out suspected weapons caches and facilities. Additional military measures being discussed include the use of American ground troops in Iraq to secure air bases and staging areas.

NEEDED RESPONSE: The Pentagon is said to be edgy about taking any step that is not supported by an overwhelming preponderance of strength in the area. At the same time there seem to be few in the Administration who are eager to resume bombing raids. But if the full course of action for now remains indefinite, the dimensions of the developing threat grow clearer. Iraq, no two ways about it, is trying to hold on to and rebuild its arsenals of mass-destruction weapons. The only purpose is so that it can one day again try to intimidate and dominate--and maybe even eradicate--its neighbors. Better to deal with that threat now than before it matures.

The political objective is clear enough: Iraq cannot be permitted to defy U.N. mandates. What’s the best response to that defiance? First, the international coalition that guided Desert Storm should be reaffirmed, so that the conflict can correctly and unambiguously be seen as Saddam Hussein against the world. Existing Security Council resolutions reflect that unity and, almost certainly, implicitly sanction further military action. But a fresh expression of authority for any such action would be extremely desirable.

Second, if force is ordered used, the mission given the military must be defined clearly and precisely. That mission is of necessity limited. Air strikes alone can’t be expected to destroy all of Iraq’s well-hidden weapons caches and factories. Probably the best that selective bombing could do is increase domestic pressures on Hussein to become more accommodating or--always a primary hope of the Bush Administration--give added incentive to Hussein’s Iraqi opponents to remove him from power. Meanwhile, the emphasis properly remains on diplomatic pressures through the United Nations. But in both New York and Washington, the perception grows sharper that time is running out.