Saddam Hussein

If peace should break out tomorrow, who will have won this war?If Saddam Hussein pulls out of Kuwait tomorrow -- and don't hold your breath -- who would be the victor and who would be the vanquished?America could claim victory. We would have accomplished the goal the United Nations set. Kuwait would be free (or at least as free as you can be under a monarch). Our oil supply would be safe. And the coalition of nations put together by George Bush would have every reason to celebrate.But Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

Ten years have passed since the United States invaded Iraq, a decision that almost everyone now ranks as one of the worst foreign policy blunders of our time. Why "almost"? Former President George W. Bush and his top aides still maintain that the invasion was a good idea, even though the premise on which the war was based - that Saddam Hussein had acquired weapons of mass destruction - proved false, and even though the ensuing war claimed the lives of more than 4,500 Americans and an estimated 127,000 Iraqis.

The noose tightens about Saddam Hussein. Washington is yanking it. But don't count him out. Survive is what the Iraqi dictator does best.It would be a fine thing for the suffering Iraqi peoples if the thug fell. But the Clinton administration ought not allow that to become its stated policy objective. Previous administrations embarrassed themselves by marking tinpot annoyances for ouster, notably Libya's Muammar el Kadafi and Cuba's Fidel Castro, who still stand.It was bumptious of the administration to try so soon to persuade King Hussein of Jordan to boycott Iraq, but correct of it to try to end Saudi Arabia's boycott of Jordan.

After two letters in attempt to justify himself and the invasion of Iraq ("Iraq's chemical weapons stocks were well documented," Dec. 28, and "Did Saddam have WMDs before the U.S. invasion in 2003?" Jan. 2) I still can't figure out what Michael DeCicco is trying to say in regard to the astonishingly stupid decision to go to invade Iraq in 2003. Clearly American citizens were in no danger from Saddam's stockpiles of chemical weapons even if they had ever been found or used on U.S. soldiers (which they weren't)

The United Nations had better police vigilantly the cease-fire agreement with Iraq. Saddam Hussein, his Revolutionary Command Council and the rubber-stamp parliament all agreed to it. But they did so under duress, they denounced it as unjust and, if experience is a guide, they will repudiate the terms when it suits their purposes.With U.S. troops occupying 15 percent of the country, U.S. planes controlling the skies and the United Nations enforcing an economic boycott, Iraq had to agree to U.N. cease-fire language to begin reconstruction of its devastated country.

American hearts go out to the families of William Barloon and David Daliberti, the two civilians working on airplane maintenance in Kuwait who strayed into Iraq and the clutches of its dictator.A civil regime would have kicked them out with a warning. Iraq arrested and tried them for entering the country illegally, sentencing both to eight years. Effectively, they are bargaining chips held by the wily Saddam Hussein in his complex dealings with the United States.The principal difficulty between the two countries now revolves around whether to lift United Nations sanctions embargoing Iraq's oil exports, or to control those exports closely so that proceeds go only to food and medicine Iraqi people need.

By our count, Saddam Hussein has already violated three articles of the Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners-of-war and is well on his way toward breaching at least two others.* In "brutally parading" (President Bush's words) American POWs on Iraqi television, he has transgressed Articles 13 and 14, which state that prisoners must be "treated humanely" and not subjected to "insults and public curiosity" or disrespect for their "persons and their honor."* Because two POWs showed signs of having been beaten and spoke words about "peaceful Iraq" that must have been forced )

Ask most Americans why they supported the Persian Gulf war and the answer will be the same.Saddam Hussein is evil.Early rationales for involvement in the conflict -- the defense of Kuwait's sovreignty and the protection of oil reserves -- were quickly subsumed by a more cosmic mission. Mr. Hussein -- vilified for gassing Kurds, massacring civilians and even killing babies -- was a ruthless barbarian who had to be stopped.Within weeks of the Aug. 2 initiation of Operation Desert Shield, the Iraqi leader embodied evil in the public's mind.

Paul Schlitz's letter about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction contained so many factual errors that it requires correction ("Iraq's WMD were a mirage, despite claims to the contrary," Dec. 30). First, in my letter I never suggested that The Sun was "pants on fire" when it claimed Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. In fact, what I took issue with was the contention that Iraq did not have any prospects for building weapons in the future. Second, I never attempted to rationalize the basis for the war, and in fact pointed out that the case against the war could be made without suggesting that Iraq had no potential for WMD. Third, whether or not some of Iraq's weapons came from American and European companies is immaterial to the discussion, since in addition to any weapons Iraq purchased the country also had produced its own weapons and delivery systems, thereby enabling it to produce them again in the future.

It must have come as a surprise or shock for some Americans to learn that there are dictatorships in the Middle East beyond Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, and Iran. It must have been even more shocking to know that those countries (Tunisia and now Egypt) are U.S. allies. In the days and months to come we might add to the list more names like Algeria, another U.S. ally, and maybe even Jordan. It is true that not all allies are perfect. It is also true that the current crisis was ignited by the global recession, high food prices and lack of jobs, but the political system or lack thereof helped make what could have been a controlled fire seem poised to burn out of control.

P resident President Barack Obama's political predicament is perhaps more serious than he understands or appreciates. He appears to see opponents as rivals to be charmed. What he should see are enemies determined to destroy his presidency. To save the agenda for which he was elected, he must give up the pretense of being a post-partisan, professorial president and start acting like an Oval Office tiger. He must get tough - not because populist rage polls well but because his leadership depends on challenging those who challenge him. Republicans, big bankers and Wall Street, and the pharmaceutical and health-insurance industries see Mr. Obama as the enemy.

Americans love a good hoax. That's why the outlandish stunt by those uninvited guests at the latest White House state dinner has amused as well as perplexed viewers rushing to network and cable news and the Internet for more details. Along with all the chuckles over the audacity of it have come solemn concerns about what might have happened had the publicity-questing couple turned out to be closet disciples of Osama bin Laden or some other imaginative terrorist leader. The Secret Service, commissioned to insulate and protect the president, has a big, fat order of egg on its face.

As George W. Bush fades from the world stage, many of his detractors are belatedly coming to appreciate that, for all his shortcomings, he has at least "kept us safe." And rightly so. In the aftermath of that terrible September morning in 2001, few believed that the U.S. would go another seven years without an attack. And in ensuring that 9/11 was al-Qaida's last successful strike on the U.S. homeland, Mr. Bush fulfilled the first duty of any commander in chief. But in so fulfilling his duty, he has unwittingly become one of the most consequential leaders in world history.

AMMAN, Jordan - Najim Abid Hajwal has been having a difficult time renewing his passport. He submitted his paperwork at the Iraqi Embassy here but was told days later that he was a wanted man back home in Iraq. It turned out that the Interior Ministry was after someone with a similar name. He submitted a new set of papers to prove his identity but was issued a passport with a wrong name. It's enough to make an Iraqi nostalgic for the good old days. "Under Saddam, a ministry was a ministry," Hajwal says.

A 67-year-old Maryland restaurateur, known by the code name "Adam," pleaded guilty yesterday in federal court to spying for the Iraqi government - including Saddam Hussein's regime - since 1989. According to court documents, Saubhe Jassim Al-Dellemy used his Laurel restaurant to gather information about nearby U.S. agencies and their employees, including where military officers lived. He gave the data to Iraqi Intelligence Service members and officials, who sometimes met at the restaurant.