From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Iraqis attempt to kill UN inspectors
Date: 31 Aug 92 10:22:34 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.


This must be the first article I've seen in WEEKS in this group. I thought it
had gone dead.

drm@esl.com (Don McGregor) writes:

[Reported bomb planting on UN official in Iraq]

>Personally, I think Saddam's gonna get whacked for this one.
>Bush has obviously been unenthusiastic about military action
>while the election's on; there are too many variables and too
>much of a downside risk.  But attempting to kill UN officials escalates 
>things in a pretty nasty way, and I doubt that an open season on UN
>inspectors can be allowed to run for the 70-odd days until the election.

>Fearless prediction: The US and allies bomb Baghdad and selected
>RG targets, and announce that Saddam must go.  Revolts in the
>North and South are given air cover.  With a clear commitment from
>the US that Saddam will be toppled, one way or another, coup planning
>increases.  Saddam buys it from a bomb (low but non-trivial possibility)
>or a 9 mm slug.  It's unclear that Iraq remains as a united state after
>all this, which is a loss.  Clinton and the congress would instantly climb on 
>board for this one, for a null op to slight Bush bounce in the polls.

I don't buy it Don. There appears to be a great reluctance to go back to
bombing Bagdahd for what-ever reasons.
It's more likely that the signal for a further revolt would be the assassination
of Hussein, but, given the severe pounding the Kurds in the North and the
Shi-ites in the south took from the RG after the initial coup, it's doubtful
if the could raise an effective fighting force, air cover or not.
In the event of a successful revolt, it's almost certain that Iraq would
fragment, with a Kurdistan being formed in the north, bagging a chunk of
Iraqs' oil reservers. It's also probable that a Shi-ite state in the South
would be formed, aligning itself with Iran. Iraq would then be left as an
ineffective state in the middle with Iran now the major power in the Gulf
area of the Middle East and that's something the vast majority of the Arab
states DON'T want to see.

>Why: I don't see a merely punative expedition as being saleable to the
>US public.  If we're going to start shooting again, the gov't will want
>to take him off the board once and for all, and stop all this nonsense
>about "cheat and retreat" on the ceasefire agreement.  A commitement
>to removing him will start people thinking about who takes his place
>afterwards.  If he's a dead man at the hands of the US/allies
>in a short period of time anyway, the jockeying for postion will be
>given a big boost.  The societal stresses of another war will relax
>the Iraqi government's grip on the citizens, leading to revolt.

Depends on what sort of position of power Hussein's son holds at the moment
and whether he can get th RG on his sides. It seems probable that the RG
would side with him on the basis that his dad has kept there 'nest warm' and
he is liable to do the same if they help him take over the reins of power.
The combination of bribery, corruption and murder is what got Hussein into
power in the first place..like father, like son I'd reckon.

Dave

-- 
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm