Saddam Hussein

Iraq’s U.N. ambassador, Nizar Hamdoon, failed to answer the most important questions (Interview, Opinion, Feb. 8): Why has Saddam Hussein failed to honor his agreement following the Gulf War to allow unlimited inspection of Iraq’s biological, chemical, nuclear and missile production sites? Why has Hussein spent untold millions of dollars to build 80 or more “palaces” instead of purchasing food and medicine for his suffering population?

It seems your interview provided a forum for Iraqi propaganda.

JOSEPH M. ELLIS

Woodland Hills

*

Three cheers for David Cortright (Commentary, Feb. 5) for his cogent arguments against hasty action against Iraq “with minimal international support”: There is no assurance that it will work; it will result in serious diplomatic problems for the U.S. (both short and long term); and innocent people will be killed.

Before we commit to striking, we should ask ourselves: Since Saddam Hussein knows that we neither want to kill civilians nor be labeled mass murderers, what is to keep him from populating likely bombing target sites with thousands of civilian “volunteers” who are willing to die in glory for Iraq?

Given Saddam’s strong need to end the sanctions, the best (and only) course of action is “to maintain sanctions and negotiate a diplomatic solution” (to quote Cortright)--while tempering those sanctions with judiciously administered humanitarian measures to reduce their impact on the long-suffering Iraqi people.

PETE BARON

Fullerton

*

In considering options for compelling the Iraqi regime to submit to inspection of its suspect facilities, one question seems inexplicably under-discussed: Instead of resorting to precision bombing, why don’t we simply use the military to forcibly enter the suspect premises and protect the inspectors? Do we think it would be too difficult to overcome Iraqi resistance, or that the casualties would be unacceptable?

STANLEY G. ROSEN

Los Angeles