Wednesday, March 7, 2001

By Jon R. Anderson
Stars and Stripes

Jon R. Anderson / Stars and Stripes Although still thankful for the U.S-led coalition that drove Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, many Kuwaitis say sanctions against Iraq have failed and wonder why the U.S. hasn't done more to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

KUWAIT CITY, Kuwait — A Saudi businessman sits at a table just outside the King Saj Restaurant sipping "shy," the sweet Arabian tea, as a small American flag hangs overhead between two Kuwaiti banners.

The restaurant next door is called the "Gorge Bush Saloon." White-robed men and black-scarved women meander by on their way to the nearby marketplace.

"No problem," says the Saudi when asked about U.S. warplanes based both here and near his home in Saudi Arabia.

"Saddam Hussein is makhmook," he says, tapping the side of his head with a finger, "crazy."

The warplanes are needed to deter Iraq. But the all-too-regular bombing raids those aircraft conduct, he says — now waving his finger with a tisk, tisk of Arab disapproval — "are no good." Like the United Nations sanctions against Iraq, he says, they seem to only hurt innocent Iraqis and do little to hamper Saddam.

Kuwaiti newspapers have been reporting recently that top Arab government officials have asked the United States to halt raids against Iraq.

"Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have asked the U.S. not to launch any further air strikes against Iraq," reported the Kuwait Times on Sunday, "because the latest attack had politically embarrassed the two countries abroad and the strikes further resulted in increased sympathy for Baghdad."

The U.S. State Department denies the reports.

"Saudi Arabia and Kuwait remain completely supportive of coalition efforts against Iraq, including Operation Southern Watch activities and the legitimate defense of coalition pilots operating in the no-fly zone," said State Department spokesman Greg Sullivan in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.

Wherever the truth lies, it’s clear the coalition against Iraq has crumbled greatly in the 10 years since the 1991 war to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. The United States and Britain are the only countries that remain in the air armada that patrols Iraq’s northern and southern no-fly zones.

Saudi Arabia refused to allow pilots based in its country to attack Iraqi targets during Operation Desert Fox two years ago and again during attacks around Baghdad on Feb. 16.

Sullivan turns that around, saying the Saudis were never asked for permission. While the vast majority of U.S. and British aircraft are based in Saudi Arabia, the U.S. relied instead on carrier-based aircraft for that attack.

A top Pentagon official said U.S. jets in Kuwait also were used.

Far from supportive of coalition efforts, however, Saudi Arabia went so far as to condemn the most recent attacks.

Secretary of State Collin Powell tried to shore up rapidly flagging support for the sanctions, calling for a continued tough stance against Iraq during a tour through the region last week. But even here in Kuwait, many are frustrated.

"Everyone would like to see a more effective policy," said Ghanim Al Najjar, professor of political science at Kuwait University and director of the Center for Strategic and Future Studies. "Obviously, the sanctions have failed to weaken Iraq."

But bombing raids in Iraq, said Al Najjar, have only grown to serve as a source of embarrassment to Arab allies in the region.

"They don’t accomplish anything," he said. "Most people want to see something more effective than continuing with these small and limited attacks."

"We are going to continue to enforce the no-fly zone," said U.S. Central Command spokesman Lt. Col. Rick Thomas. "Our strikes are the result of provocations from Iraq. We reserve the right to strike at the place and time our choosing for the protection of our pilots and their aircraft."

Interestingly, however, there have been no strikes against Iraq in the southern no-fly zone in the wake of an international outcry over the Feb. 16 raids.

Before then, strikes had been occurring at a regular clip — 39 over the past year, seven of those since President George W. Bush took office less than two months ago.

What confuses many here is why the United States has not been more forceful in removing Saddam from power.

"When the U.S. wanted Manuel Noriega out of power in Panama, they went in and took him out," said one Saudi, in Kuwait for Muslim holidays.

Indeed, said Al Najjar, there is a growing suspicion among many Arabs "that Saddam is still in power because the U.S. wants him in power."

A strong, but reined-in Iraq provides a convenient counterbalance to region’s only other military heavyweight Iran.

"There is also a feeling that it is a ploy to convince everyone to buy arms," he said.

While Al Najjar said he’s not convinced such allegations are true, "it doesn’t fit that, after a decade, Saddam is still in power."

Back to March's stories
Page Two news roundup
Stories from February, 2001
Stories from January, 2001
Stories from December, 2000
Stories from November, 2000
Stories from October, 2000
Stories from August and September, 2000
Stories from June and July, 2000
Home