‘Iraqi Roulette’: Dodging A Bullet Must Not Be Confused With Ending The Threat Posed By Saddam

(Washington, D.C.): For seven years, the West has been an unwilling participant in a variation on
the fabled game of “Russian Roulette.” Call it “Iraqi Roulette.” The difference is that the Russian
version involves a player spinning the chamber of a revolver with one bullet, holding it to his own
head and pulling the trigger. In the Iraqi version, it is Saddam Hussein who holds the gun; the
head in question is ours.

The Not-So-Great Game

Time after time, year after year, Saddam has tested the resolve and cohesiveness of the U.S.-led
coalition that defeated him in Operation Desert Storm. In the past, generally in the face of
countervailing pressure, he backed down; he usually managed in the process, however, to erode
the U.S. position and/or international support for it.

Typically, the Clinton Administration, U.S. allies and the international media have reacted to the
click of Saddam’s trigger on an empty chamber with relief and self-congratulations. Never mind
that a “bullet” remains undischarged, that the “pistol” is still in Saddam’s hands or that these
realities will, in due course, inflict real harm on America, its citizens and interests.

The Folly of Appeasement

Tragically, this syndrome is in evidence again at the moment. Press reports to the effect that
Saddam Hussein and Tarik Aziz are falling off their hardline stance — i.e., prepared to accept
American inspectors on Iraq’s terms (namely, if the composition of the UNSCOM teams is
“balanced” by limiting the number of U.S. participants and matching them with equal
representation from Russia, China, France and presumably others in Saddam’s pocket) — are
causing nearly audible sighs of relief from the White House and Pentagon to Kuwait City.

This neglects the historical experience of dealings with totalitarian thugs, in general, and Saddam,
in particular: Alternating between aggressive behavior and diplomatic feints is one of the oldest
tricks in the play-book of despots. For example, an announced willingness to parlay and sign
non-aggression pacts bought Hitler half-a-decade — despite his enormous military buildup and
other violations of the Versailles treaty, his conquest of much of Central Europe and the early
stages of his murderous campaign against the Jews — when modest resistance would have ensured
his fall from power.

When in Doubt, Clinton Appeases

Having learned nothing from this or other, similar bitter experiences with appeasement, President
Clinton is evidently bent on trying to buy off Saddam. According to CNN, an unnamed
senior U.S. official traveling with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in the Middle East told
reporters that:

“The Clinton Administration is talking with Britain and France about a plan to
encourage Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to resume cooperating with UN weapons
inspectors. Under the proposal, Iraq would be allowed to sell more of its oil under the
UN’s food-for-oil program [pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 986]. The
types of goods that Iraq could buy with the oil revenues would also be broadened.”

The Center understands that the amount in question would be an additional $1 billion —
over and above the currently allowed $2 billion every six months. Combined with a relaxation of
restraints on the types of goods that Iraq can purchase, these concessions will inexorably lead to
further pressure to ease the sanctions regime — and ultimately to eliminate it altogether.

The Administration has evidently also shown some leg on the other front: It has reportedly
promised to consider new arrangements for staffing the inspection teams, thus effectively
capitulating to Saddam’s principal demand. The outcome of these negotiations is certain to be
all the less satisfactory for their being entrusted to the double-dealing Russians (notably,
Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov — the Soviet KGB’s control officer for Saddam
Hussein) and the eminently unreliable French.

The Bottom Line

Now, as previously, appeasement of ruthless dictators may postpone the day of reckoning; that
day will not be prevented, however. And if it comes later, it will assuredly be worse as Saddam
will use the intervening period to amass still greater means of inflicting mass destruction.

Should President Clinton blink in the face of Saddam’s latest provocation, he will be
judged with the harshness history reserves for the likes of Neville Chamberlain. If he fails to
use this country’s still vast power — unilaterally, if necessary — to help engineer a prompt end to
Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror,⁽¹⁾ Mr. Clinton will earn that enduring contempt by expending
precious defense resources without lasting effect, by further diminishing international confidence
in American leadership and resolve and by emboldening Saddam to engage in still more audacious
and deadly acts of aggression. Far from dodging a bullet by appeasement-masquerading-as-diplomacy, Mr. Clinton will have condemned the United States, its people, friends and interests to
living for a while longer under Saddam Hussein’s ever-more-dangerous gun.

– 30 –

1. See the Center’s Decision Brief entitled Take Out Saddam (No. 97-D 168, 10 November
1997).