Iraq Embargo Debated: Will It Take Too Long? : Sanctions: Measures against Baghdad are choking its economy. But some say they can’t be sustained.

The fiery congressional debate over President Bush’s request for authorization to go to war with Iraq has focused on a critical question: Are the economic sanctions working?

The answer seems to be yes and no.

Never in this century has a concerted worldwide effort been so effective at choking off the commerce of a single nation. But it may be six months, a year or even longer before that pressure becomes great enough to force the Iraqis out of Kuwait. Many analysts question whether the embargo can be sustained that long.

The sanctions--an embargo of goods flowing in and out of Iraq and Kuwait, backed up by a naval blockade--were imposed by the United Nations shortly after Iraq invaded its smaller neighbor last August. The CIA says the policy has been almost airtight, shutting off more than 90% of Iraq’s imports and virtually all of its exports.

Within Iraq and occupied Kuwait, the sanctions have produced serious inflation, hard-currency shortages, rationing, industry shutdowns and the curtailment of such vital services as medical care and sanitation. Other operations, such as electric power generation and refining, have continued and appear unthreatened.

“Economic hardship alone is unlikely to compel Saddam (Hussein) to retreat from Kuwait or cause regime-threatening popular discontent in Iraq,” CIA Director William H. Webster wrote this week in a letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.).

Webster added that the key elements of Iraq’s front-line defenses, such as its infantry and artillery forces, are not likely to be “substantially eroded over the next six to 12 months, even if effective sanctions can be maintained.”

But as the letter circulated on Capitol Hill, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) said he found it confusing because it offered data indicating that sanctions are working. “I consider that good news,” Nunn said.

Added Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.): “It is significant that even the Administration cannot and does not say that the policy of sanction has failed.” Mitchell and other Democrats have said they do not want to authorize the President to go to war until he certifies that sanctions are not working.

Mitchell noted that the CIA has estimated that some parts of Iraq’s war-making machine will be strained by the embargo. The Iraqi air force’s ability to fly regular missions will decrease after three to six months, while its ground and air force readiness will deteriorate after nine months, Mitchell said.

Georgetown University Prof. Gary Hufbauer, leading a team of researchers at the Institute for International Economics, studied 115 previous embargoes and concluded that none was as effective at strangling a national economy as the action against Iraq.

Ultimately, they estimated, the embargo could cause the Iraqi economy to shrink by as much as half. Previous embargoes that were successful in achieving their political ends caused an average reduction of only 2%-3% in the economies of the targeted nations, Hufbauer said in an interview.

He noted, however, that advocating reliance on sanctions as the best strategy to pursue was easier in October than it is today because the continued military buildup has created pressure for a more aggressive solution.

“Now, you’ve got presidential prestige on the line,” Hufbauer said. “He’s got himself way out on the plank, just as Saddam has.”

Hufbauer and other analysts said that, over time, any embargo inevitably will begin to erode. For example, countries such as Iran or China might choose to break ranks with the international alliance in the gulf and begin trading again with Iraq. And “if you get huge turmoil in the Soviet Union, all bets are off,” Hufbauer said.

Although economic sanctions require months and perhaps years of patience, some observers caution against accepting suggestions that warfare would bring the crisis to a quicker, more decisive end.

Whether the United States goes to war only to expel Iraq from Kuwait or whether it seeks to destroy Iraq’s military power, it faces a long commitment of its troops in the Middle East, warned retired Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, now a military analyst.

“If (the battle) involves only expelling those forces from Kuwait without further action to destroy the bulk of those forces in Iraq, it will not remove the military threat to Saudi Arabia, and we will face an indefinite period of occupation of Kuwait,” Odom said.