Christopher Ruddy
Friday, Aug. 2, 2002

Last week, Adm. Moorer had joined me for a luncheon speech by former CIA Director James Woolsey at the Institute of World Politics.

Woolsey told the group the U.S. should invade Iraq with 100,000 to 200,000 troops as part of World War IV, which he said began on Sept. 11, 2001.

Adm. Moorer told me he didn't like the talk of world war.

Few can appreciate war like the admiral, who landed on his first aircraft carrier in 1935.

He was there at Pearl Harbor, and later saw his own plane crash in the Pacific. He was rescued by a supply ship that was also later destroyed by the Japanese.

Miraculously, he was saved in a small lifeboat and went on to see more action in that war, as well as combat in the Korean War and, of course, the Vietnam War.

During Vietnam he served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and it was his advice to begin the Christmas bombings of 1972 that brought the war to a quick end.

Speaking as a military man – he can speak and think no other way – Adm. Moorer says we need to proceed carefully with Iraq.

While he sees the danger of Saddam Hussein, he thinks an invasion could be very costly in American lives. He wonders why other options haven't already been implemented that could help reduce Hussein's power and make an invasion easier.

"The way I would deal with Iraq," the Admiral said, "is cut them off now and make them starve."

He continued: "I would cut off all of their oil, cut all shipping, all air traffic in and out of the country. I would interrupt their telecommunications.

"What would Hussein be able to do?" the admiral asked. "His army has no mobility."

The admiral's thinking is wise. Squeeze Iraq first. If they don't accept unfettered U.N. inspections, the strict embargo will weaken Saddam. He may be overthrown from within. Certainly, he will be weaker when and if the U.S. decides to invade.

Adm. Moorer's advice should have been heeded months ago.

Instead, Saddam has been allowed to steadily sell oil for billions. He also has plenty of time to prepare his army and perhaps his terrorist agents here in the U.S. Arguably, a strict air and sea embargo may have tightened the noose around Saddam and limited his ability to harm us.

But Americans need to remember that as we prepare to go to war with Iraq, we continue to buy oil from them and fund the regime we so despise.

Back in 1998, when Bill Clinton was facing impeachment, he made a big fuss about Saddam's weapons programs.

Saddam refused to give inspectors complete access. Instead of forcing the issue, Clinton did what he always did: He caved.

Saddam thumbed his nose at us, and what did we do? The U.S. agreed as the U.N. lifted its sanctions and implemented its "Oil for Food" program. While the program was intended to help the Iraqi people, it has also freed up resources for Saddam to spend on his military and terrorist activities.

In addition to the Oil for Food program, Clinton also turned a blind eye to massive Iraqi oil smuggling in violation of U.N. sanctions. Illegal oil shipments reportedly net Hussein an additional $2 billion in war money a year.

If the U.S. government was thinking in military terms, Adm. Moorer's advice would have been heeded long ago.

Instead, political thinking is at work in Washington.

Fearing a complete embargo would cut off all Iraqi oil and cause a dramatic rise in oil prices, the politicians in Washington fear such a move could seriously harm the already teetering U.S. economy.

So, Washington wants both cheap oil and an ousted Saddam.

Clearly, Washington wants it both ways. But we may not be able to have it both ways, and the present policy may make ousting Saddam more dangerous and difficult.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Clinton Scandals
Saddam Hussein/Iraq
War on Terrorism

A product that might interest you:
Saddam Hussein’s race to make a nuclear bomb