With Kosovo on the Front Page, Congress Pursues The “Other War” With Saddam Hussain’s Iraq

By Shirl McArthur

America’s spring campaign against Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic pushed the other war against Iraqi President Saddam Hussain to the back pages. Prior to the March 24 launch of the Serbian campaign, however, Iraq received congressional attention at hearings in the House on March 10 and 11, and in the Senate on March 17.

At the March 10 and 11 hearings before the House Armed Services Committee, chairman Floyd Spence (R-SC) made clear his disenchantment with the administration’s policy, saying that “the lack of a clear and consistent Iraq policy deprives increasing U.S. military operations of a guiding purpose or rationale.” On the second day he summarized the testimony of the first day’s witnesses by saying that they “raised legitimate concerns over the coherence and direction of administration policy toward Iraq.”

One of those witnesses, John Hillen, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that “containment” seems to be the official U.S. strategy toward Iraq, hoping to “keep Saddam in his box, such that he lacks the military capability to threaten his neighbors, develop weapons of mass destruction or destabilize the Persian Gulf region in some way.”

Containment Not Sustainable

Hillen pointed out six reasons why the containment policy is not sustainable:

“It is inconclusive, having not yielded even the glimmer of a solution to the Iraq problem for the past eight years.”
“Every indecisive round keeps pressure on Saddam, but also allows him time and breathing space.”
“The continued sanctions on Iraq give Saddam Hussain legitimacy and strengthen his hold on power over the suffering Iraqi people.”
“The policy…is expensive and demoralizing.”
“Containment fatigue is setting in, with allies and other powers tiring of the routine and wanting to resume normal and business relations with Iraq.”
“Finally, and, most importantly, the current containment policy leaves many parties other than the U.S. in charge.”

In the Senate on March 17, before a joint meeting of the Foreign Relations and Energy committees, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson and Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering tried to defend the oil-for-food program against a group of senators who appeared more concerned about the possible negative effects of the program on their states’ oil producers than on the plight of the Iraqi people.

Energy Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski (R-AK) led the attack, joined primarily by Sens. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Jeff Bingaman (R-NM). They claimed that the oil-for-food program is directly responsible for the low oil prices of the past 18 months, and that the program has, in effect, given Saddam the role of swing producer. Richardson and Pickering patiently tried to explain why this was not the case and how the program is structured to prevent funds from flowing to Saddam.

Iraq Policy Too Soft

Murkowski and Sam Brownback (R-KS) both criticized the whole Iraq policy as being too “soft” on Iraq. Brownback said the oil-for-food program is effectively propping up Saddam’s regime, and he asked Pickering, “Are we not at war with Iraq?”

The unflappable Pickering replied that no, we are in “a state of animosity.” He also pointed out the reality that if the U.S. were to abandon the oil-for-food program, what’s left of the allied coalition and the sanctions program would collapse. Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) asserted at the end of the hearing, however, that this was the only “saleable” argument that Richardson and Pickering had made, and that they would have to do better than that if they expected any congressional support.

Only Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) spoke out about the suffering of the Iraqi people, asking how that can be alleviated. Richardson and Pickering said that the best way would be to expand the oil-for-food program. Pickering reminded the senators that the problem is Saddam Hussain and the U.S. is not at war with the people of Iraq.

Since March 24, Iraq has been mentioned in the halls of Congress only in passing. At an April 15 hearing before the House Appropriations subcommittee, which was supposed to be about foreign aid but rapidly developed into a hearing on Kosovo, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked only one question about Iraq.

Rep. John Porter (R-IL) pointed out that the U.S. has lost support for its Iraq policy at the U.N., and that with the Kosovo campaign raging on there seemed to be no Iraq policy. He asked what was happening. Albright responded that the actions in the no-fly zone were continuing and the administration is trying to work with opposition groups to get a regime change in Iraq.

Shirl McArthur, a retired foreign service officer, is a senior consultant with Bruce Morgan Associates, an international research and consulting firm in the Washington, DC area.