The Rollback Fantasy

Daniel Byman, Kenneth Pollack, and Gideon Rose

From Foreign Affairs, January/February 1999

Article preview: first 500 of 6,270 words total.

Summary:  The hottest foreign policy idea in Washington today is using the Iraqi opposition to topple Saddam Hussein. But all the current rollback plans are militarily ludicrous, anathema to key U.S. allies, or unacceptable to the American public. Relying on airpower would require a Desert Storm-sized air war and even then would probably flop; seizing enclaves from Saddam's grasp asks far too much of the feeble opposition army; and none of Iraq's neighbors will host guerrillas out to oust Saddam. Rollback's advocates are indulging in either wishful thinking or cynical politics. The only real option is renewed containment to keep Iraq in its box. Delusions of grandeur about toppling Saddam will lead only to another Bay of Pigs.

Daniel Byman is a Policy Analyst with the RAND Corporation. Kenneth Pollack is Senior Research Professor at the National Defense University. Gideon Rose is Deputy Director of National Security Studies and Olin Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. The opinions expressed herein are their personal views.

AN IRAQI BAY OF PIGS

Four decades ago a Third World dictator threatened American interests in a crucial region. Unwilling to pay the costs of an invasion or settle for containment, U.S. policymakers convinced themselves that a cheap and easy third option existed: support for some of the dictator's domestic opponents, whose efforts would supposedly spark a popular uprising and topple the regime. The resulting invasion attempt by Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs turned into one of the worst fiascoes in the history of American foreign policy.

Incredibly, a similar concept -- using the Iraqi opposition to overthrow Saddam Hussein -- is one of the hottest foreign policy ideas in Washington today. From congressional leaders to a galaxy of former government officials, from The Weekly Standard, National Review, and Commentary to The New Republic and columnists at The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Nation, support for the Iraqi opposition has become the leading alternative to the Clinton administration's current policy. One recent letter urging the president to back Saddam's foes more strongly was signed by three former Republican national security advisers, three former Republican secretaries of defense, and seven former Republican subcabinet officials; another prominent supporter of the idea has been Clinton's first CIA director, R. James Woolsey. As a result, in October Congress hurriedly embraced an Iraq Liberation Act authorizing $97 million in military aid to democratic Iraqi resistance groups. The president's staff was unenthusiastic, but Clinton signed rather than pick a fight. And after yet another showdown with Iraq over U.N. weapons inspections last November, the president himself jumped on the bandwagon by touting the administration's "engagement with the forces of change in Iraq" and its intention to work for "a government in Baghdad -- a new government -- that is committed to represent and respect its people, not repress them."

The basic idea behind the boomlet is simple: The United States should refuse to accept the continued rule of Saddam Hussein and help install the Iraqi opposition in his place. As Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) put it, "The doctrine here has to be rollback, not containment." In The New Republic, former Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz wrote, "Toppling Saddam is the only outcome that can satisfy the vital U.S. interest in a stable and secure Gulf region, because, to a degree unique among contemporary tyrannies, the Iraqi regime is Saddam Hussein. . . . The vast majority of Iraqis want him out, though only those with a death wish say so openly. We must help them." Moreover, Saddam could supposedly be replaced at relatively low cost -- even, many advocates argue, without committing American ground troops. The world could be free of Saddam, Wolfowitz argued in testimony before Congress, if the Clinton administration would only "muster the necessary strength of purpose."

The fly in the ointment is that this is simply not true. Even if rollback were desirable, any policy to achieve it would have to pass three ...

End of preview: first 500 of 6,270 words total.