A Situation Tailor-Made for Saddam Hussein : Iraq: Limited military action, like last week’s, won’t change the Iraqi leader. Instead, his army should be hit and bombed until it throws him out.

In 146 B.C., Rome defeated long-time rival Carthage and gave rise to the term Carthaginian victory --a complete and unambiguous military success. The residents of Carthage who were not slaughtered were sold into slavery; the city was razed and its site sowed under with salt.

In January, 1991, the United States assembled the most lethal collection of military power in history in the deserts of the Persian Gulf and unleased it against the vastly inferior Iraqi army. But the fearsome coalition settled for a victory far from the Carthaginian type. The new Clinton Administration may pay the price for this decision.

Last week, the United States, Britain and France returned to the skies over Iraq in an action that had little military significance but was meant to deliver a political message. But the fundamental problem remains: Saddam Hussein is still in power, his hold on Iraq seemingly as secure as ever. His army is still one of the largest in the region. His police force remains capable of rooting out opponents with ruthless efficiency.

Hussein, furthermore, retains the initiative in his latest political game of move and countermove. He proved as much in his repeated violations of U.N. resolutions. The Iraqi leader can select the time, place and severity of his violations. He will invite the ire of coalition members by restricting the movements of U.N. flights and observers or by retrieving weapons guarded by the unarmed--then back off. But he will not commit an infraction serious enough to force the coalition to reassemble its army.

With the Gulf coalition army disbanded, the amount of military pressure that can be brought to bear against Hussein is quite limited. It is a predicament tailor-made for Hussein. It’s safer for him to operate when his people do the suffering. It also forces a protracted conflict that has the potential of becoming wearisome for a United States facing overextension in the Gulf, Somalia and possibly in the Balkans.

Last week’s air strikes against Iraq did accomplish one thing: They bought time for the incoming Clinton Administration, which will certainly be tested--and soon--with a new set of challenges from Hussein. Once in office, the new President should order a complete review of U.S. policy toward Iraq. Two issues should become clear.

First, the status quo is unacceptable; Hussein cannot be allowed to continually flaunt the authority of the United Nations. One of the main reasons the Gulf coalition went to war against Hussein was to restore the legitimacy of the United Nations. But Hussein’s repeated violations of its resolutions undermine the credibility of the international organization precisely at the time when it is being called upon to manage a number of hot spots around the globe. Iraq must be compelled to comply with U.N. law.

Second, the sanctions against and blockade of Iraq cannot continue indefinitely. Does anyone still believe that sanctions will alter Hussein’s actions? Inflicting pain on Iraq’s civilian population has had no effect on Hussein’s decision-making. By continuing the blockade against Iraq and denying the country its major source of revenue, oil sales, the United Nations is only destroying a nation that someday is expected to return to the community of nations.

Because of the Gulf coalition’s failure to push the conclusion of the war along Carthaginian lines, the Clinton Administration is faced with a paradox. The U.N. resolutions must be adhered to, but the traditional levers of U.N. pressure--sanctions and blockades--are having little effect and may, in the long run, be counterproductive.

Rather than targeting the Iraqi population by keep the sanctions in effect, attention should turn to the Iraqi military, the only institution within Iraq that has any real potential of removing Hussein. Toward that end, the no-fly zone should be extended to all Iraq. Selected military targets--airfields, SAM-missile sites and depots--should come under sustained bombing. Baghdad should be buzzed daily to remind its residents of the impotence of their leader. (The buzz tactic worked for the Israelis by pressuring Anwar Sadat into action, because he feared his military would oust him for inaction in the face of the Israeli overflights.) And the intrusive U.N. weapons inspections should be increased and expanded.

The message to be driven home, rather than the simple one communicated by last week’s round of strikes that Iraq went too far in its violations of U.N. resolutions, is that Hussein is unacceptable and the military will continue to suffer until he is removed.

The Clinton Administration must ask what role Iraq is to play in the Gulf. That the country has one to play is certain. If Clinton reaches the likely conclusion that the world cannot live with Hussein, then his removal should become the President’s objective.