Suddenly Saddam

Furious activity in the Persian Gulf: American warships, planes and troops converge; U.N. weapons inspectors and international relief workers evacuate; Iraq’s propaganda machine cranks.

It’s time for the next showdown With Saddam Hussein. Congress suddenly wants to argue with the Clinton administration about the world’s longest-running crisis.

Whoa, Mr. President, shouts Sen. Arlen Specter. Consult with Congress before you make any sudden decisions; it’s that checks and balances thing. Take five, Pentagon, advises Sen. Sam Brownback, chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern Affairs. Let’s tighten the sanctions, beef up that no-fly zone and give some money to rebels while we sort this out. It’s all so sudden.

This particular crisis is new — sparked by Iraq’s Oct. 31 decision to halt all U.N. weapons inspections — but the overall crisis is getting old. The world has been trying to figure out what to do with Saddam Hussein for eight years. The world has known for four that he has no intention of complying with the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire. Sanctions, embargoes, surgical strikes and carpet bombings have not worked because, to Saddam Hussein, no sacrifice his people can make is too great as long as he has a deep, well-furnished bunker to call home.

It’s good that Congress wants to debate this country’s policies regarding Iraq, but to act as though it has has no opportunity to do so is absurd. And to hesitate now, after all the saber-rattling, gives Saddam his fondest public-relations wish: The Great Satan is a Big Chicken.

With all the hardware and personnel in place, two options are being considered: Use small numbers of the smartest bombs going to take out specific targets directly involved in the development, production and delivery of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; or launch a massive air campaign to devastate Iraq’s entire war-making capacity. Either way, expect Saddam to emerge unscratched, Iraqi TV to be full of scenes of demolished orphanages and hospitals and anti-American sentiment in the Arab world to increase.

Those are the only options available at the moment because they are the only ones the White House, State Department and Pentagon can employ largely on their own. There are two others, they could build upon the current buildup, but they would require something that’s hard to come by — consensus and commitment by Congress.

The United States could urge an end to the sanctions; let Iraq return somewhat to normal, let its people be fed. At the same time, it could keep a large force in the region, ready to demolish Saddam Hussein and his regime, utterly and without warning, at the first act of aggression. There also is the chance, perhaps remote, that an Iraqi society not on constant red alert could produce a viable political opposition. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, the United States immediately could muster all the allies it can, level Iraq from the air, invade on land and forcibly install a democratic government. Both are costly, time-consuming and perilous. Both are the kind of things that cannot be done without the approval of Congress.

The last time Congress had a full debate on Iraq was when this crisis was new, when the whole world pitied helpless Kuwait. The present situation has been simmering since spring, but few had the stomach for debating a long-term commitment of American forces so close to an election. Trouble is, there’s always an election coming, and Saddam knows it.

This problem is complex and urgent. The Iraqi people are living a hellish existence under a brutal dictator. The entire region, perhaps the entire world, is in danger as long as Saddam remains in power. It’s OK for Congress to admit this is an extremely difficult situation. It’s foolish to act as though it just came up.