Clinton against Saddam

The U.S. air strikes launched against Iraq in the early hours of Thursday morning did not really come as a surprise, although the vehemence of the operation and its timing caught most of the international community off guard.

By Thursday afternoon, in what was thought to be the first wave of attacks in a campaign lasting for days, American defense officials said that between 200 and 300 tomahawk cruise missiles had been fired at installations suspected of being part of Baghdad's program to develop biological and chemical weapons. Baghdad radio reported that at least five people died in the strikes.

President Clinton appeared on television to proclaim that the attack, code named "Operation Desert Fox", was intended to "protect America's vital interests" in the Middle East. The order was given, Clinton said, after reviewing a United Nations report detailing Saddam Hussein's latest refusal to cooperate with a UN team of chemical and biological weapons inspectors working in Iraq.

U.S. officials openly acknowledged that they hoped the attacks would achieve what the United Nations weapons inspectors have been unable to accomplish in seven years, namely destroy Baghdad's ability to develop and produce weapons of mass destruction.

There is no question that the United States and many of its Western allies have a strong interest in preserving a favorable political balance in the oil rich Gulf region of the Middle East, but that does not justify direct military strikes on a sovereign state's territory. No less commendable are the political motives behind the attack. American officials barely concealed their hope that the strikes would mark the beginning of the end for Saddam Hussein. In Washington, Republican senator Richard Lugar called the air strikes an "important start" toward removing the Iraqi dictator from power.

At the same time, senators called on Clinton to make use of the Iraq Liberation Act, which allows the United States to provide opposition groups inside Iraq with logistical, political and financial support.

Be that as it may, the efficacy of these latest strikes is questionable. Although weaker countries in the Gulf region may now feel safer with the dangerous and unpredictable Hussein fighting a rearguard action, Operation Desert Storm in 1991 taught Washington that air strikes alone were not enough to disable Baghdad's military capabilities or shake the Iraqi president's powerbase. An all out war would be required to do that, and it is unlikely that Washington would be willing to entertain the prospect of embarking on such a risky and controversial venture.

Then there is the small matter of the timing of the attacks, which came only hours before a key vote on whether to impeach Clinton. Given the political agonies which Clinton must currently be going through, it is difficult to avoid viewing the attacks as the action of a cornered president fighting desperately to save his political neck. Although Clinton is off the rack for the time being, his reprieve will only be temporary. It would be ironic indeed if Saddam Hussein outlasted Clinton in office.