There's a debate going on among policy planners in the Clinton administration over Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The main question is: "How do we get rid of this guy?" (There's no question, of course, about the legality of interfering in another country's internal political affairs--something prohibited by the U.N.) Everyone has their opinions, but they seem to fall into two camps: one side prefers to arm Iraqi opposition groups, while the other side wants to continue the current policy of "containment," which involves slowly starving the Iraqi population to death. The containment folks have a big problem, though: growing dissent here at home and an enormous outcry internationally is making it tough to continue the sanctions. Also, the sanctions have only helped Saddam retain power and unify his hold over Iraq.

But the "arm the opposition" camp has its own troubles. Last September, Congress approved $97 million to support (i.e., arm and train) opposition groups in Iraq, but the Clinton administration can't decide who to fund. In 1996, the Iraqi military crushed two opposition groups that were supported by the CIA, and now the U.S. government won't support either the Kurds (that would piss off Turkey and Syria) or the southern Shiites--if they came to power, they might be sympathetic to the Shiite government in Iran (the current Iraqi government is predominantly Sunni). The Clinton administration has dimly proposed that a future Iraq should look like Yugoslavia: a confederation of three or four autonomous regions squabbling over political boundaries.

The likely winner of this battle is an old cold war strategy still in vogue at the Pentagon and State Dept.: destabilize the country, starve its population, demoralize its military (which is the main aim of the current bombing campaigns), and hope another military commander gets fed up and stages a coup. The fact that Saddam has foiled four such coup attempts so far and has gained the support of the Arab League and most of the U.N. Security Council hasn't deterred the Pentagon one bit. Growing dissent here at home, however, just may be the key.--Maria Tomchick

Many folks (including me) have wondered how the New Carissa's oil spill compares to the infamous Exxon Valdez disaster. The Exxon Valdez-- celebrating its spill's tenth anniversary later this month--was an oil tanker that spewed over 11 million gallons of oil in Prince William Sound in Alaska, earning the dubious honor of being the worst oil spill in history. By comparison, the New Carissa is small potatoes (fortunately for the people and marine life of the Oregon and Washington coasts). Nevertheless, the 70,000 gallons spilled in Coos Bay and the remaining 130,000 gallons in the bow section parked near Waldport could still do irreparable damage to birds, fish, seals, marine mammals, and especially to shellfish, as the heavy fuel oil sinks and coats the sea bottom of these two environmentally sensitive estuaries.--M.T.

The New Carissa spill also shines new attention on two controversies over potential oil disasters in Western Washington. First, there's the matter of requiring tug escorts for tankers at the treacherous entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, on the northwestern edge of the Olympic Peninsula. Environmentalists have been clamoring for it for years-- including making a futile appeal last year to VP in charge of enviro- whitewash, Al Gore. Shippers and oil companies are, surprise, resistant to the idea because they would have to pick up part of the cost. Then there's the horrid proposal for a trans-Cascade pipeline, a 230-mile invitation to disaster that's awaiting a final decision by Gov. Locke next year. The pipeline, which would run from Anacortes to Pasco via Woodinville, crosses all sorts of active earthquake faults and avalanche zones, as well as sensitive salmon streams. An EPA review in January was skeptical of the project, but that's not slowing it down any. Oh, and then there's the Anacortes refinery itself, which keeps blowing up. --Geov Parrish