From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Iraqis attempt to kill UN inspectors
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:00:16 GMT

In article <1358@esl.ESL.COM> drm@stimpy.com writes:
>In article 5160@cas.org, jac54@cas.org () writes:
>>>>Fearless prediction: The US and allies bomb Baghdad and selected
>>>>RG targets, and announce that Saddam must go.  Revolts in the
>>
>>      Forty days and forty nights of hard rain didn't change his mind,
>>      another couple of dozen sorties won't do it either.
>>
>I was thinking more along the lines of killing him, not changing his mind.

	That's the only thing that will work.  As I pointed out, the
	allied Air Forces are the only ones capable of killing him.

>
>According to Scowcroft (US NSC advisor) on one of the Sunday talk
>shows, the Iraqis have moved a couple divisions out of garrision in the
>last few days.  The US expects that Saddam wants to move against
>the shiites in the south again, where a low-level revolt is still going
>on.  The Iraqi government said that the "no-fly zone" would be
>resisted "on all levels."  To me that suggests a low-level campaign
>of harrassment and intimindation against convienient targets, like the
>UN inspectors, who returned to Baghdad today.

	Apparently the RG has taken up defensive positions south of
	Baghdad.  I doubt that they are capable of Russian-style rapid
	movement from defence to offence and I think that their C3I could
	be disrupted very quickly if they tried it.  Iraqi pilots have been
	flying comparatively aggressively recently but I doubt that they
	are going to try any harder than the Libyans when MiG meets the
	McD.

>The US and allies have penned in Saddam pretty tightly; apparently he
>feels that he must respond if he is to maintain control of Iraq outside
>of the palace grounds.  The problem is, all his responses are likely
>to cause the allies to tee off on him.

>>>I don't buy it Don. There appears to be a great reluctance to go back to
>>>bombing Bagdahd for what-ever reasons.
>
>Yeah, they're reluctant.  They'd prefer that the whole problem just go
>away until after the election.  I don't think it can be swept under the
>rug for much longer, though; Hussien's actions are likely to bring things
>to a head and force a response, whether the allies want to or not.
>The alternative (giving Saddam a free hand in Iraq to subvert the
>ceasefire agreement) is likely to be even more unacceptable.
>>
>>      Agreed, the only people capable of killing SH are the allied
>>      air forces and SH would have to be killed before any revolts
>>      would be able to succeed.
>
>Killing him outright via bombing is a fairly low-probability event, due to the
>problems in finding him, and then in putting enough ordanance in the right
>spot.  Imagine knowing that he's at 1060 W. Palace Way.  An F-117
>drops a laser bomb onto the house, but Saddam is in the sunken torture
>chamber gouging a few eyes out, and only gets wounded.

	Even so, they are the only people capable of doing it.  If the
	information was good enough a hard enough strike could be
	prepared to get even the sub-basements.

>His personal security IS good, but again, if there's a perception that

	His security apparat is essentially unmatched since the days of
	the Yezhovschina.  It is engaging in a comparable piece of
	social engineering.  That sort of terror will dull any perception
	of vulnerability.  Remember, this is a country where 7- and 8-
	year olds will denounce their parents for telling jokes about
	SH.

>he's a dead man, and that whomever kills him first gets to be ruler, the
>life insurance premiums start to go up.  To achieve that the US needs to
>make a commitment to ousting him. That's both the most likely way to
>succede and the most risky from the US standpoint; if it doesn't work,
>we need to go in and hunt him down.

	This is tantamount to assassination, and that is prohibited (by
	the U.S. at least) and the political consequences in the U.S. and
	in terms of its relations with other countries could be catastrophic.

>>      Unfortunately, there is no Iraqi government in exile to take
>>      over.  The only thing that could be done would be a UN or
>>      Arab League mandate to administer the country until the people
>>      were "re-educated" and a stable government that will respect
>>      the rights of the people is VOTED IN.
>
>The Iraqi political opposition has been dead or out of the country for decades, so they
>have no base of support.  The US tried to patch up an alliance of sorts among
>the oppostion groups several months ago, but probably the best that could be
>hoped for would be  a loose confederation of the constituent parts of iraq.
>
>A democratic Iraq is largely a pipe dream, IMHO.  There's no democratic
>tradition at all there, and installing one would take years.

	On the other hand, can another strong man be installed who will
	have any credibility?  The last thing that needs to be done is
	to set up a puppet in such a critical piece of real estate.  What
	needs to be done is to set up a government that will ease the
	repression, leave the people alone to rebuild their lives, and
	achieve a modus vivendi with the surrounding countries.  Looking
	on the bright side, at least they're not in direct contact with
	former Soviet Central Asia.
>
> The support for Saddam outside of the ruling circle (which is bound to him
>by blood and mutual guilt) is very low.  After the Gulf war, a couple reporters
>said that Saddam was being refered to as a "triple devil", and that the only
>critisism of the US was that it didn't finish him off.  Recall the Iraqi
>soldiers surrendering to Italian reporters, then breaking out into a
>spontaneous chant of "Tscheorge Busch."

	Vox pops from Iraq are notoriously unreliable so I wouldn't place
	an excess of confidence in them.  A good dictator can always pull
	the people around him, especially when someone IS out to get him.
	If he can hang on for a while longer and show some improvement in
	standards of living in central Iraq then discontent may subside.
	The Iraqis did a remarkable job of rebuilding their infrastructure
	and the footage we have seen shows people looking well-fed and
	dressed.  He may yet hold on.

	As for the soldiers chanting for George: I think that was more
	relief at everything being over than a desire to vote Republican.


	 Alec