It has been eight long, hard years for the people of Iraq, who are suffering the devastating effects of the United Nations economic sanctions and what appears to be a never-ending cat-and-mouse game between President Saddam Hussein and the United States. Neither the tedious work of the UN arms inspectors, whose dismantling of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction should have been followed by the lifting of the embargo, nor the inept type of warfare the US has been waging against Saddam, have offered even a glimmer of hope for Iraqis who want this nightmare to end. Now US President Bill Clinton has vowed to "intensify work" with the Iraqi opposition groups to remove Saddam from power and set up a "democratic government", fueling speculation about Washington's intentions and whether the administration has finally made up its mind to get rid of the Iraqi leader once and for all. Before the latest standoff between Iraq and the United Nations, neither Clinton nor his senior administration officials had come up with a well-defined strategy regarding the future of Saddam's regime. Instead, a vague policy of containment through economic sanctions was floated, along with a plan to pull Iraq's military tooth. Clinton's latest pledge suggests he sees the toppling of Saddam as the only option left. However, the administration's new approach is as vague as its containment policy. The proposal to bring Iraqi opposition groups together to embark on a US-backed insurgency to force Saddam out eventually and replace him with a more democratic government, is fraught with problems given that the groups are divided among themselves. This policy of trying to unite Saddam's opponents was implemented after Clinton cancelled military strikes aimed at punishing the Iraqi leader for booting out the UN weapons inspectors in early November. That was the ninth time Saddam had defied the Security Council and provoked a confrontation with the inspectors since they started their mission in 1991. The US's latest policy, therefore, appears to be a result of the Clinton administration's frustration with the dreary cycle of standoffs, threats and backdowns and its conclusion that only force will get rid of Saddam. But will it work? Since the US is not prepared to commit a single American soldier in a war with Saddam, Clinton's new policy suggests that Iraqi dissidents, backed by US money and weapons, will get rid of Saddam. The first step is to forge the sharply divided and discredited opposition into a united front which will spearhead a military struggle. The policy, which yet has to develop into a concrete plan, seems to depend largely on a bill passed by the Congress last month instructing the Pentagon to allocate some $97 million to provide the opposition groups with arms, equipment and training. This month, US Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk met with Ahmed Shalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress and one of the largest opposition groups in exile, in Washington, before travelling to London to meet leaders of other opposition groups. There, he reiterated the offer of US support and urged the groups to band together in a unified force. Derek Fatchett, British Foreign Office minister responsible for Middle East Affairs, held similar discussions on Monday with the opposition leaders who held a meeting in London in an attempt to unite their ranks and draw up a plan to get rid of Saddam. Fatchett stressed in his meeting with the opposition figures that "Iraq without Saddam Hussein will be a better country." The US-British project, however, appears to be fraught with problems. Apart from the fact that the exiled opposition is fragmented, most of the groups do not have any grass roots support in Iraq. Those that do, appear to be reluctant to take part in any scheme that is blatantly orchestrated by the US. They would prefer more indirect political and diplomatic support from the US to avoid the embarrassment of being labelled American stooges. Even if the administration can find groups willing to embrace this strategy, the question needs to be asked: How will this weak and inexperienced opposition take on Saddam, whose regime is well entrenched behind his army, a powerful republican guard and a strong security force? Furthermore, the US scheme appears to disregard the wishes of the Iraqi people by attempting to impose a new regime by force. One potential problem is the fact that the project -- "Liberation of Iraq" -- will undoubtedly need the blessing of regional powers, especially Iraq's neighbours, who could jettison the plan if they find themselves sidelined. It will be difficult, for example, for the US to help an Iraqi opposition build a base for armed struggle inside Iraq without the cooperation of its neighbours. So far, it appears that Iraq's neighbours, even those among the US's best friends, are reluctant to stick their necks out for fear the move could set a precedent and may well end up destabilising the region. Meanwhile, the reported assassination attempt on Saddam's first deputy, Ezzat Ibrahim, on Sunday in the Shi'ite city of Karbalaa in south Iraq will most certainly be seen as a further erosion of the Iraqi leader's power base. Whether or not the attempt was carried out by an organised dissident group or disgruntled Iraqis, it will still be an encouraging sign for all of those people who support the plan to topple Saddam. The real problem, however, is that the Clinton administration does not think about a long-term strategy for Iraq which goes beyond its frustration with the recurrent crises with the UN weapons inspectors. It is doubtful Washington will be able to unite the Iraqi opposition groups and make them a credible alternative to Saddam's regime. Neither will it be able to sell this project to any country except to Britain, whose government always tails US policy and does what they do. Saddam, meanwhile, will continue with his game of survival until Washington sinks deeper in its frustration and realises that removing him from power is easier said than done.
