[Nasional-e] Chicken with Saddam

[Ambon]

 Take 'yes' for an answer

 Thomas L. Friedman The New York Times Friday, October 11, 2002

Chicken with Saddam

WASHINGTON It all goes back to a well-known concept in strategic theory: how
to win a game of chicken between two drivers barreling head-on at one
another. If you are one of the drivers, the best way to win is, before the
race even starts, to take out a screwdriver and very visibly unscrew your
steering wheel and throw it out the window. The message to the other driver
is: "Hey, I'd love to chicken out and get out of your way, but I just threw
out my steering wheel - so unless you want to crash head on, you better get
out of the way."
.
We are witnessing a similar situation between George W. Bush and Saddam
Hussein. To push the United Nations, the Arabs and the Europeans to finally
get serious about forcing Saddam to comply with the United Nations
inspection resolutions, Bush had to appear wild - as if he had thrown out
America's steering wheel and was ready to invade Iraq tomorrow, alone. It
was a very smart tactic, and if it produces a serious, united international
front it may yet pressure Saddam into chickening out and allowing
unconditional inspections. It may even turn up the pressure so much that
someone in Iraq is emboldened to take Saddam down. You never know.
.
But in order to cultivate allies ready to keep the pressure on Saddam and to
join a U.S.-led coalition to overthrow him if he continues to snub the
United Nations - and, even more important, to join with America in
rebuilding Iraq after his government is ousted - Bush has to be ready to
take "yes" for an answer from Saddam, and give him a chance to comply. This
is a very delicate strategy to pull off, and what is worrying is that the
Bush team seems divided. Secretary of State Colin Powell appears ready to
accept a "yes" from Saddam if he agrees to unconditional inspections. Even
if America doesn't believe Saddam, even if we think he will cheat in the
end, Powell seems to understand that we need to appear to be making a
reasonable offer and taking "yes" for an answer - if we want to retain
allied and U.S. public support.
.
But to listen to Bush, Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, a "yes" from Saddam on
inspections is not sufficient. In his speech on Monday, Bush detailed a list
of conditions - that Saddam allow witnesses to illegal activities in Iraq to
be interviewed outside the country, that he end the "persecution" of Iraq's
civilians and stop "illicit trade."
.
These add-ons are a mistake. First of all, most of America's Arab allies
persecute their people, and many Arabs, Turks and Europeans thrive from
illicit trade with Iraq. We should be focusing on Saddam's noncompliance
with UN inspection demands - period.
.
It is very unlikely that Saddam will comply, and that is what we want the
world to see clearly.
.
We don't want the allies to be able to say that the Bush team is wild and
crazy, so let them go alone. Many allies would love that: America eliminates
Saddam, the world gets to criticize the United States for being a bully, and
the United States has to pick up the bill for rebuilding Iraq. That is a
trap. If America invades Iraq alone, it owns Iraq alone - owns the
responsibility of rebuilding Iraq into a more progressive Arab state alone.
As worthwhile a project as I believe that is, I don't think Americans are up
for doing it alone, without UN cover or NATO allies to help pay. Bush knows
that, which is why he stressed: "We will act with allies at our side and we
will prevail." I would say, "If we act with allies, we will prevail." If we
can't, we should settle for aggressive containment - which means: Don't ask,
don't tell, just bomb any suspicious Iraqi weapons sites.
.
It's O.K. to throw out your steering wheel as long as you remember you're
driving without one. It's O.K. to be wild to spur allies to join us. But if
they won't, we must not go from wild to crazy and invade Iraq alone. Because
the folks in the Middle East do crazy so much better than we do. The New
York Times