Living in terror's shadow: Gannett News Service special report

WASHINGTON -- It's not a question of whether Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein wants nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction -- he does.

It's not whether he has the will to use them -- he does.

What's shaping the debate over U.S. options against Saddam is whether efforts to contain him are failing and, if so, how he should be dealt with.

A panel of experts told senators Wednesday what the Bush administration has been saying for months -- that containment is failing and that "regime change" is rapidly emerging as the only viable option.

"Limiting Iraq's access to technology is bound to fail," Iraqi physicist Khidhir Hamza told a Senate committee holding the first of many hearings this summer and fall on U.S. options in Iraq. "The U.S. cannot police the transfer of technology in the age of the Internet. The threats are too widespread."

Threats

Saddam had substantial supplies of chemical weapons before the Persian Gulf War, but it's not known how extensive his arsenal is now.

UNSCOM, the United Nations delegation assigned to inspect Iraq for weapons of mass destruction as part of the Gulf War resolution, found most of the arsenal and destroyed it.

Former UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler, however, told lawmakers that Iraq has 20 years of experience making chemical weapons and extensive knowledge of how to hide production facilities from inspectors and spy satellites.

"UNSCOM was able to account for a substantial portion of Iraq's holdings and manufacturing capability, but not all of it," he said.

UNSCOM was expelled from Iraq in 1998.

Inspections after the Gulf War also revealed Iraq had large stores of biological weapons, including anthrax bacteria, and was experimenting with ways to deliver them, such as missiles and drone aircraft.

Perhaps most worrisome, lawmakers were told, is Iraq's desire for nuclear weapons and its growing capability to make them.

Butler said Iraq has the equipment and knowledge now. And both he and Hamza warned it's likely Iraq would have enough nuclear materials to make several small weapons by 2005 if Saddam stays in power. That would prompt Iraq to act even more aggressively in the Arab world and against Israel, they said.

Options

A steady stream of leaks from the Pentagon has revealed a menu of options for the Bush administration and Congress, ranging from continued inspections to a major invasion.

Inspections were successful immediately following the Gulf War, but Saddam found increasingly clever ways to thwart them.

"Ideally, what you would like is a resumption of inspection and arms control," Butler said. "But not if it means the shell game again."

Most of the other options now being debated involve toppling Saddam by force.

The most conventional military option essentially entails a replay of the Gulf War, but on a smaller scale: 250,000 mostly U.S. troops supported by heavy air strikes launched from surrounding allies, including possibly Turkey and Jordan.

Another more limited option would involve conducting intense air strikes against Baghdad and other key targets and airdropping special forces for surgical raids. The goal would be to trigger an implosion of Saddam's regime, ideally before he could use any chemical or biological weapons.

The least invasive option would be to promote rebellion among the opposition in Iraq, as was done with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban in Afghanistan. But critics point out that attempts to overthrow Saddam through these groups have failed in the past because of insufficient U.S. support, which has left them skeptical about trying again.

What's more, the Iraqi Republican Guard is a far more disciplined and formidable military force than the tribal Taliban. Saddam's heavily fortified internal security also raises doubts about the potential for a successful coup.

Whatever happens, congressional leadership has stressed it wants a role in making the final decision.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said there is a "growing sense, both within the United States and abroad, that the Bush administration is poised to launch a major military offensive against Iraq."

The Bush administration insists it has not adopted any plans, but its rhetoric indicates it has concluded that Saddam must go -- sooner rather than later.

"If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long," said Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Marshall Billingslea. "The future is ours to lose."