Saddam Hussein

Regarding your May 1 editorial, “Worthy Aim--Dubious Means,” on the Clinton Administration’s recent decision to back the Iraqi opposition in hopes of forcing Saddam Hussein from power: You offer only the same old excuses without offering any more viable counter proposals.

Destabilizing Iraq? In case it somehow escaped your attention, Iraq is destabilized--an inevitable result of being led by a man who is himself unstable. Shaky coalition? Yes, the Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis and others composing the Iraqi National Congress are quite a disparate group of people who have had past problems with in-fighting, but that doesn’t mean these problems will continue. I believe increasing evidence of U.S. support will solidify this coalition. They’re already united by a desire to be free of Saddam’s brutality.

And why assume Iraq and Afghanistan must be identical? There are many ways to aid Iraqi opposition forces without putting American troops on the ground, but I feel strongly that any action should not be covert. Presenting the case for this to the public wouldn’t be difficult; most of the American people still do want Saddam removed (or dead).

I applaud President Clinton’s decision to back the Iraqi National Congress, and I hope he will soon give them tangible proof of his support. The sanctions are only hurting the Iraqi people--including those who are against Saddam--and U.N. monitoring of weapons and compliance with its resolutions will never be completely effective until someone whose word we can trust is in charge there; it’s clear that Saddam has to go. I can think of no more legitimate and workable way to bring that about than backing the Kurds, Shiites and others in their struggle against him. GAMIN DAVIS

San Diego