Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, March 21, 1991 TAG: 9103210332
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: PATRICK E. TYLER/ THE NEW YORK TIMES
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
But at the same time, the episode raises the question of whether the administration has developed a policy to prevent the breakup, or "Lebanization," of Iraq and to influence the succession that may lie ahead in Baghdad. So far, the administration has not explained its approach beyond predicting that Saddam will probably not be in power by year's end.
Bush and his advisers also face a critical decision on whether the United States should abandon the Iraqi insurrection that it has nurtured by protecting it from the Iraqi fighters, bombers and helicopter gunships grounded for now by American air patrols.
The White House and the Pentagon said two Soviet-made Iraqi SU-22 planes took off Wednesday from an air base in northern Iraq and were detected by an American AWACS surveillance plane, part of the air patrols that the coalition has maintained over Iraq since fighting was suspended.
The AWACS sent a variation of the F-15 fighter, the F-15C, to intercept the Iraqi fighter-bombers and shot one of them down, officials said. The other was allowed to land. It was not immediately known whether the pilot of the downed aircraft had survived.
Administration officials said they did not know why Iraq sent the two planes aloft, but suggested that the most likely explanation was to test the coalition's resolve.
By forcefully telling Iraq that any aircraft that flies - even 1,000 miles north of the cease-fire line to attack Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq - is a threat to the United States, Bush has for the moment attached the fate of the rebellion to the allied cause.
Senior administration officials continue to say the overall American objective is to bring U.S. troops home as quickly as possible. But they also continue to call on the Iraqi people to overthrow their vanquished leader.
"There clearly is a bit of ambiguity in our position," an administration official said Wednesday. "We've talked a lot about getting Saddam out, but the clear priority is to get the troops home. It seems to be a contradiction and if you look at our public statements, the administration has not been very effective in explaining its position."
At the heart of the problem is the fact that as long as 100,000 U.S. Army troops are bivouacked in southern Iraq and American planes patrol the skies, President Bush has the ability to influence events in Iraq and could be forced by events to do so.
Last week in Martinique for his meeting with President Francois Mitterrand of France, Bush was asked whether it would be safer for Persian Gulf security to allow Saddam to reassert his authority by crushing the rebellion or run the risk that fundamentalist Shiite Muslims, who make up 55 percent of Iraq's 18 million people, would take control and establish an Islamic republic similar to Iran's.
"I'm not going to answer your question," Bush replied. "But you spell out two hypotheses. It's a little too negative. Perhaps there's something that's a little more positive than either of those alternatives. Let's hope so."
Bush's remarks reflect the still dominant assessment among U.S. intelligence officials that neither the southern Shiites nor the northern Kurdish minority can carry off a successful rebellion against Saddam's authority and the tradition of Sunni Muslim control it represents.
by CNB