Monitor: Opinion on the threat of US military action against Saddam Hussein
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE UNITED States bombing campaign should not be symbolic, but be designed to destroy as much of Saddam Hussein's capability to make and use weapons of mass destruction as possible. This is not a matter of the United States and other countries meddling without right in Iraq's internal affairs. Iraq began this by invading Kuwait. The United Nations authorised a US-led military campaign to reverse that aggression. Having defeated Iraq's army, the United States chose to accept, in place of Saddam Hussein's total surrender and relinquishing of power, his pledge to disarm. His failure after all these years to honor that pledge gives the United Nations every right to reconsider its merciful cease-fire terms.
The Washington Post, US
THIS GAME of cat and mouse must end. It has gone on too long and the only victim is the Iraqi people, strangled for seven years by sanctions. But how to stop it? The Pentagon plans successive strikes on military sites: the objective is to weaken the regime of the dictator with the aim of eventually taking it apart, while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. For if we are really concerned for the good of Iraq and keen to put an end to this interminable crisis, we must put an end to Hussein. It is probable, therefore, that the first strikes will be nothing more than the prelude to what will be a long offensive.
Le Figaro, France
SADDAM'S CURRENT strategy takes full advantage of Clinton's expected decision to wage limited air war with its modest compliance aim. His ultimate purpose is to be able to credibly bluff the West into letting him dominate his part of the world. In 2002, he moves on Saudi Arabia; we threaten to invade Iraq; Saddam announces he is ready to risk national suicide by firing a nuclear missile at us. The US has no missile defense. Does a prudent President let him grab those oil fields, or will Clinton's successor be forced to gamble a US city on the hope that a homicidal maniac is only bluffing?
The New York Times, US
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments