Military Questions Plan to Topple Hussein

The top U.S. military commander in the Middle East attacked on Wednesday a congressional plan to help opposition groups attempt to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, charging that the proposal could divide Iraq, set off an Arab blood bath and dangerously destabilize the region.

Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, who heads the U.S. Central Command, said he feared that the proposal, endorsed by Congress last week, could entangle Washington in a factionalized war that would further turn Arab opinion against the United States.

“A weak, fragmented, chaotic Iraq--which could happen if this isn’t done carefully--is more dangerous in the long run than a contained Saddam is now,” Zinni told a group of defense reporters.

If the United States embarks on a program of arming Hussein’s Iraqi adversaries, he warned, “we’re going to be bombing and killing Arabs in the end. . . . Is that what we want to do? And how will that be perceived in the region?”

The congressional measure authorizes, but does not require, the Clinton administration to spend up to $97 million to arm opposition groups within Iraq, including several Kurdish factions. One opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, contends that it could oust Hussein in six to nine months, using U.S. money and a force of perhaps 10,000 fighters.

U.S. supporters, including retired Army Gen. Wayne A. Downing and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have suggested that American forces might support the effort with air cover and perhaps even some ground troops. They have argued that the opposition forces might be able to seize thinly defended areas in western and southern Iraq, opening enclaves that could attract deserters from Hussein’s army.

The proposal has gained momentum as it has become clearer that Hussein’s regime, though hobbled, is not in danger of being toppled by international economic sanctions.

Administration officials have said that they do not intend to ignore the congressional legislation and that by mid-January they will designate one or more opposition groups as eligible for military aid, as provided in the act.

But privately, administration officials have expressed deep misgivings--similar to those voiced by Zinni--about the plan’s feasibility.

The Marine commander said he wonders whether the Iraqi dissidents have the ability to form a stable coalition and administer a state that consists of Kurds in the north and Shiite Muslims in the south, as well as other ethnic groups.

“The danger here is that I don’t see a lot of viability in the opposition groups,” he said. “I see a lot of potential for the Kurds going one way, Shiites going another way, the center going some way.”

Iraq might break apart, splintering into several states with rogue governments, shaky economies or internal lawlessness, Zinni said, citing Afghanistan as an example.

Nor could the United States expect to arm the opposition groups without taking responsibility for the results of their insurrection, he said.

“If we’re going to go in and support this, and we’re going to go in dropping bombs, we’re going to be midwife to this thing. . . . We’re going to inherit it, and we’re going to be looked at as responsible for it,” he said.

Zinni noted that Iraq’s neighbors, including close U.S. allies, do not want instability. They want Iraq to be strong enough to offset Iranian dominance, and they fear the effect on their own nations of Kurdish autonomy in the Iraqi north and possible Shiite uprisings elsewhere, he said.

Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA and National Security Council official now at the National Defense University in Washington, said he believes that administration officials will support a plan that is workable.

However, the congressional plan, along with the proposals advanced by the Iraqi National Congress, appear to be “of dubious feasibility,” he said.

Pitting 10,000 lightly armed fighters against Hussein’s mechanized Republican Guard will result in slaughter, he predicted.

“He will make mincemeat of them,” Pollack said.