In last week’s edition of Newsweek, former Clinton adviser George Stephanopoulos set off a firestorm by suggesting that the U.S. government assassinate Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein, arguing that it “may be the more sensible – and moral course over the long run.” Mr. Stephanopoulos wrote that we should not be stopped by a misreading of the law or by “misplaced moral squeamishness.” The bag limit is one, and Saddam is the quarry.

To those who have been through the rougher seas of American foreign policy since the Clintonites took the helm, there was at least one piece of reassuring news in Mr. Stephanopoulos’ statement: He didn’t suggest that the United Nations tell Mr. Clinton to ice Saddam. Unfortunately Mr. Stephanopoulos put forward a case that ignores two fundamental issues. First, if Saddam gets whacked, what comes after? Can the world be assured that his successor will not be just as bad, if not worse? What could be unleashed against the West and the U.S. if this came to pass? Second and more important – should the United States really be in the habit of assassinating world leaders? Especially since it’s against the law.

Mr. Stephanopoulos wrote that by killing Saddam, we would be doing the world a favor at the lowest possible cost of innocent human lives. Possibly. President Clinton, he argued, could simply override the existing executive order banning U.S. complicity in assassination, which was signed by President Ford, with his own order saying, essentially, except for Saddam. Mr. Stephanopoulos points out that by doing this, the United States would be “relaxing the moral norm” against killing but that it would be a “justifiable price to pay” for removing the threat of Saddam. This isn’t a relaxed moral norm; it’s supine.

Moreover, puerile 007 musings notwithstanding, killing Saddam doesn’t remove one ounce of nerve gas from his stockpile, doesn’t eliminate one missile from his arsenal and will certainly stir up a volatile region now barely under control after the dismantling of the Gulf War coalition. If Saddam dies tomorrow from anything other than a public suicide, America and our closest allies in the Middle East (Israel and Saudi Arabia) will be suspects in his demise. The resulting wave of anger from supporters in and out of Iraq and the possible low-tech terrorism that could result might cost thousands of lives all over the globe in the name of revenge.

Any successor to Saddam will likely be no slouch in the tyrant category because of the violent and brutish nature of the Iraqi political system. The next Iraqi leader will be the toughest, smartest and most ruthless individual capable of climbing Baghdad’s greasy pole.

What is more disturbing is the notion that the U.S. should, by presidential fiat, suspend our tradition of moral decency and unwavering principle. Mr. Stephanopoulos tried to buttress his position by quoting Cicero, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. Assassination, he writes, “is the least random act of war.” He’s right in that it is the least random act of war. But it is still an act of war.

If this were February 1991, killing Saddam would be acceptable; he was the commander of military forces actively engaged in battle against the United States. In 1943, American aircraft, acting on intelligence information, intercepted a plane carrying Japanese Admiral Yamamoto over the South Pacific and downed it, killing him. This was a legal and moral act taken in time of war – Yamamoto was one of the finest Japanese leaders, and removing him from the chain of command undoubtedly saved American lives.

But we are not now at war with Iraq. Until we are, any notion of killing Saddam should be left to Ian Fleming and their like. We must also never forget that America is not a nation of assassins, nor should we be convinced that any piece of paper, short of a declaration of war, bearing the signature of any president gives us a moral license to kill.

Mr. Stephanopoulos wrote that the one drawback he could see to the assassination plan was the potential danger to Mr. Clinton and his presidential legacy. He said that an unsuccessful attempt to kill Saddam would cause Mr. Clinton embarrassment late in his second term and that the president could “pay a heavy political price.” How typical: The first warning sign is not what might happen to America or the world, but how it will affect the turnstiles at the Clinton Presidential Library.

The Greeks advised that one should never give a child a sword. Wise counsel, indeed. What is scary is that Mr. Stephanopoulos was once close enough to the reins of power to indulge his cloak-and-dagger fantasies and his simplistic foreign policy views.

Craig Shirley is president of Craig Shirley and Associates, where Robert Geist is senior account executive.

LOAD-DATE: December 5, 1997

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

Copyright 1997 The Washington Times LLC All Rights Reserved