WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 (UPI) -- The Bush administration is on the cusp of a final decision as to when and how to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Months ago, President George W. Bush announced to the world that Saddam must go. The Bush team is expected to decide soon on the "how" and "when" of D-day Iraq.
Some within the administration advocate the status quo containment approach, while others, such as Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, argue that Saddam is "too dangerous to leave alone and too dangerous to wait five or 10 years for Iraq to hit the United States with weapons of mass destruction."
Saddam long has been cozy with terrorists. A host of terror groups has trained in and often operated from Iraq. In a report titled "Saddam's Ultimate Solution," the Public Broadcasting Corporation allegedly placed Osama bin Laden at an Iraqi terrorist training camp in 1998. Bin Laden's deputy, Aymar al Zawahiri, was in Iraq in 1992.
Iraq continues to expand its weapons of mass destruction capability. According to the U.N. Special Commission, hundreds of tons of weapons and precursor materials remain unaccounted for. British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently told London's Daily Telegraph there is "no doubt at all that [Saddam] is certainly trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear capability."
In fact, there is a good chance that Iraq already has nuclear devices. UNSCOM confirmed that Iraq was only a year away from having a nuclear weapon when the 1991 Gulf War intervened.
During the 1980s, Saddam killed thousands of Iranian soldiers and Iraqi Kurds with chemical and biological munitions. Now, with the help of China, Hussein possesses even more sophisticated munitions.
In short, the noxious combination of a terrorist sponsor plus a large inventory of weapons of mass destruction plus a proven record for killing thousands equals an undeniable call to action.
Some U.S. allies have argued that renewing UN weapons inspections is the answer. Unfortunately, as evidenced by a third round of unsuccessful talks with Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, Saddam will never agree to unfettered access.
Meanwhile, anticipating a near term U.S.-led assault on his regime, Saddam has launched an aggressive counter-campaign.
First, Saddam wants to deny the United States any bases near Iraq. Saudi Arabia has opted out because of the threat of internal repercussions. Iran is an old Iraqi enemy, but also refuses to help the United States. Jordan won't help because Saddam has considerable support among Jordan's large Palestinian population, bolstered by the fact that Saddam continues to award cash to the families of Palestinian bombers.
Turkey, a key NATO ally on Iraq's northern border, profits handsomely from Iraq's black market oil and wants to avoid further problems with Iraq's Kurdish population in the north. Besides, the Turkish government is near political and economic collapse.
Second, Saddam wants to deny the United States a global coalition, while also attempting to make it politically unpalatable for the United States to act alone.
For various reasons, the European nations, with the exception of Britain and -- probably -- France are balking at actively joining any anti-Iraq military coalition. Even ally Japan, who helps resupply U.S. warships in the Arabian Sea, may remove that support should the United States launch an attack on Iraq.
Finally, Saddam has poured billions of dollars in black market oil money into his defense establishment. He has hardened his air defense system, purchased mobile missile launchers, improved communications with cyber optics provided by the Chinese, and restructured and redeployed his military forces.
What should the United States do? It can continue the containment policy. But, since Iraq-based terrorist organizations threaten the entire world, as does Saddam's inexorable march toward perfecting weapons of mass destruction is containment truly working?
The New York Times July 5 outlined U.S. planning discussions on Iraq. One scenario called for 250,000 personnel assaulting from three directions and aerial bombing. The operation would take weeks or longer. The political consequences could be many and serious.
Long-term relations with Arab allies might be damaged. Also serious is the report that some Israeli planners favor using the cover of a U.S. invasion of Iraq to forcibly exile all Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan and Egypt. This would further destabilize the region and jeopardize U.S. relations with Israel as well as the Arab world, and especially with volatile Iran.
Military operations in Iraq might require America to redeploy forces such as the Seventh Fleet, leaving Taiwan vulnerable to attack. China has made no secret that it wants Taiwan back and soon.
Moreover, a U.S. attack on Iraq might be used by China's politically desperate leaders as justification for enlarging its own power. After all, China despises American military might as an obstacle to its own regional hegemony.
Perhaps the least risky alternative for the United States is what retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni gave the unlovely label of the "Bay of Goats" option.
Approximately 100,000 Iraqis, many now in exile, comprise potential resistance forces that could be marshaled to defeat Saddam. These forces would need regional training grounds and better arms, which could be funded through the $1.5 billion in frozen Iraqi assets.
The United States would provide air support and a large heavy reserve. U.S. Special Forces would operate much as they did in Afghanistan. There would certainly be a risk of failure, but little American blood would be spilled and if all fails, U.S. planners could always dust off other plans and try again.
U.S. cooperation and support for the revolution would be conditioned on a process that would transform Iraq to a secular republic. The new leaders would have to agree to respect human rights and to destroy weapons of mass destruction.
This approach is plagued with many difficulties, but, considering all the alternatives, it's certainly worth the risk.
Robert L. Maginnis is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who is a frequent military analyst for many television and radio networks. He is also the vice president for policy for the Washington-based Family Research Council.
