On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, John Korber wrote:

> A question I've often wondered about was why Hussein was left in power
> after the Gulf war. Any theories?

If the US had removed Hussein (by assassination or occupation), it would
by its own lights have had to find someone much like him.  It needs a
predictable strong man in Iraq, even if he's "an enemy" (and Saddam was of
course a long-time US client).  His removal would have forced the US to
consider the claims of, e.g., the Iraqi democratic opposition (almost
totally silenced in the US press through out the Gulf War and after).
What the US couldn't stand was a government that really acted in the
interests of its own people -- "the threat of a good example."

A manageable enemy in Iraq is the better than an independent democracy
there (cf. Cuba and Nicaragua) as a support for the middle-range aims of
US policy -- notably the protection of a situation in Southwest Asia where
the only weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the principal US
client, Israel.  The recent contretemps arises from Saddam's recognition
of the differences in aims of the US and the Europeans in the region and
his consequent attempt to drive a wedge between them.

C. G. Estabrook