Why can't agencies like the CIA/ FBI get rid of Saddam?

[Miss Zippy]

I read an article in one of the papers the other day in which Katherine Hamnett asked why couldn't the CIA/FBI 'take Saddam out?' So, if US or UK agencies had the necessary intelligence on the likes of Saddam and BL, why couldn't they infiltrate the relevant hubs of power to get close enough to 'take them out'; not only getting them when they least expect it, but avoiding a war. I know it can't be as simple as that, but (let's assume the agencies do have the necessary intelligence for the purposes of this question) why can't it be?

[DavidUK]

I'm sure they could if that was what they really wanted to do. I can only conclude that getting rid of Saddam isn't the real reason for the war.

[rekstout]

Better the devil you know...
Ignoring the fact that assassination is not condoned (or even admitted) internationally and is seen as unsporting. Killing off the head honcho of a group of baddies is a bit like lopping off the top of a verruca - most if it is still there. It would create a power struggle amongst potential sucessors which could destabilise the region and lead to a far more damaging conflict. SH may be a bad guy but he is a known quantity who is far from stupid and knows how to play the game. Creating a power vacuum to be filled by a more arrogant, naive sucessor might not be such a sensible idea. Besides that - tit for tat - if SH were assassinated you can be more sure than ever of retaliation.

[Miss Zippy]

I know what you're saying about Saddam being the leader of a bad bunch and there are plenty of others to take his place etc., but I wonder how many of his bunch are real hard-core fanatics who have the ability, inclination and the backing of their peers to take over where he left off? If the 'nucleus' of the power hub if killed off, i.e. Saddam and the handful of hard core hangers-on, then I doubt the current regime could continue and perhaps it would send the message out to other budding dictators they will just be wiped out without notice.

[rekstout]

Breaking the hub and creating several armed, disparate groups would not be good news. Look at the IRA - they disarm (sort of) and we end up with so many splinter groups to keep an eye on that everyone is confused now. The smaller an organisation, the easier it is to slip through the intelligence net and the greater the influence that one person can have. Imagine if the UN broke apart - we would already be at war with Iraq - keeping an organisation large an unweildy means it takes longer to do anything because a consensus has to be stablished and communicated.

[hexic]

because the more favourable outcome is to maintain Iraq's borders as they are now. If there's a sudden power vacuum in baghdad, the kurds and shiites would see an opportunity to make a claim for independence, which could drag Iran and turkey into the conflict.

[brooklyn77]

The FBI are bound by laws that govern the country as well as any other agency. Yes they can apply for a Licence to kill (as such) but netherless, the FBI are not superhuman or superheroes, they still need credible insiders, tactics, knowledge of his movements etc...Saddam is always on the move, in a vast wilderness, you still have to find him to kill him, and then get the people in place to carry out the killing before he moves again. Anyway the slightest hint of a snitch under his regime...and your dead!!