Will Clinton Just Pay Lip-Service to the ‘Liberation’ Iraq — Or Will He Take Concerted Action to Achieve it?
(Washington, D.C.): Surprisingly few surprises have come out of the latest “crisis” with Iraq.
Indeed, the behavior exhibited by Saddam Hussein, by President Clinton and by the so-called
“international community” was absurdly predictable — and the outcome predictably ominous for
U.S. interests and the prospects for peace.
Deja Vu All Over Again
Consider a few of the non-surprises:
President Clinton is Misusing the U.S. Military: As in the past, President
Clinton employed
the U.S. armed forces in a manner that simultaneously called into question his
competence as
Commander-in-Chief and raised suspicions about his true motivation
for calling upon them at
this juncture. As regards the former, for example, Mr. Clinton telegraphed his planned attack on
Iraq so completely that Saddam was able to calibrate his latest diplomatic feint down to the
minute. This only served to reinforce the widespread perception that the Iraqi leader’s cunning
continues to permit him to run circles around the United States. (At a minimum, there is a critical
need for a review of “opsec” — measures taken to assure the security of a military operation.
Depending upon how much the Iraqis knew about the character and timing of the strike, the
mission could have been seriously compromised and American lives needlessly sacrificed.)
The perception of American haplessness is further compounded by the sense that the
President
has once again acted — this time, after the mid-term elections and in the run-up to his
impeachment hearings — for reasons having to do mostly with domestic political calculations, not
U.S. security interests. While the number of cruise missiles slated for use against Iraq was
apparently considerably higher than the strike executed a few months ago against Osama bin
Laden’s facilities in Afghanistan and the alleged chemical weapons factory in Sudan, the suspicion
that the attack twice aborted last weekend against Iraq was more “dog-wagging” only serves to
undermine America’s credibility around the world.
Iraq is Offering Up Fraudulent Assurances: Saddam Hussein has again
made empty promises
of cooperation, confident that the much-ballyhooed resolve and unanimity of the international
community would prove ephemeral, as it has so many times before. Even his first letter to
Secretary General Kofi Annan — which National Security Advisor Sandy Berger properly
described as “unacceptable” — was deemed by the Russians, Chinese, French and by Annan
himself as an adequate basis for renewing their objections to an American use of force. Suddenly,
it was the U.S. and its British allies who were once again isolated, not Saddam.
Neither is it a surprise that, having thwarted the United States one more time, the Iraqis are
now
starting to quibble about the extent of their commitments. It is equally predictable that the
UNSCOM inspectors being returned to Iraq will shortly find themselves, as ever, harried and
hampered Saddam’s officials. When that occurs, however, don’t count on an international
consensus to emerge that it is intolerable, let alone that it warrants a forcible response.
The U.S. is in No Position to Keep Deferring Military Action: There is no
surprise, either,
that this latest yo-yoing of U.S. forces to Persian Gulf is taking a tremendous toll on personnel
and equipment. Saddam correctly calculates that the Clinton Administration lacks the will, the
resources and the latitude to leave a large presence in place. Drawdowns necessitated by financial
realities, morale considerations and/or pressure from regional allies embolden Baghdad. They
also ensure that the costs associated with responding to its provocations, made under
circumstances and timing of Saddam’s choosing, become ever more prohibitive. It is not clear
how many more chances the U.S. will have before Saddam is able to deter American military
action by wielding a formidable arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
Removing Saddam?
The one seemingly surprising turn of events in the weekend’s drama occurred when President
Clinton declared on Sunday: “…Over the long-term the best way to address [Saddam’s] threat is
through a government in Baghdad — a new government — that is committed to represent and
respect its people, not repress them; that is committed to peace in the region.” He went on to
profess that:
- “Over the past year we have deepened our engagement with the forces of change in
Iraq, reconciling the two largest Kurdish opposition groups, beginning broadcasts of a
Radio Free Iraq throughout the country. We will intensify that effort, working with
Congress to implement the Iraq Liberation Act which was recently passed;
strengthening our political support to make sure the opposition, or to do what we
can to make the opposition, a more effective voice for the aspirations of the Iraqi
people.”
For those familiar with President Clinton’s modus operandi, however, even this apparent
turn-about should not be astonishing. After all, his present embrace of the Iraqi opposition —
after six years of steadfastly opposing and sabotaging their efforts to organize themselves and
their countrymen for the purpose of liberating Iraq — reeks of characteristic insincerity and
opportunism.
The fact is that leaders representing virtually the entire American political
spectrum — from
John Kerry and Joe Biden on the left to John McCain and Dick Lugar in the establishment center
to Trent Lott and Steve Forbes on the right — now agree that the United States can
settle for
nothing less than the elimination of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
President finally gotten serious about adopting such a course of action?
The Bottom Line
Unfortunately, if unsurprisingly, the answer appears to be “No.” Immediately after the
President
uttered the preceding words on Sunday, Secretary of Defense William Cohen made clear that the
President “was not calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.” Instead, Mr. Cohen said that
bringing about such a change in Iraq is merely a “long-term goal.”
President Clinton really has no choice any longer. He must get serious about ending
Saddam’s
reign of terror in Iraq — and the menace it poses to the rest of us — by starting at once to work
assiduously, overtly and through every available means to create conditions that will liberate parts
of Iraqi territory, delegitimize Saddam Hussein and make possible his ultimate removal from
power. Military action should be used to advance that end.
about, there should be little doubt that Saddam will give us a truly nasty surprise down the road.
– 30 –
1. See the Center’s Decision Briefs entitled
Bipartisan Initiative to Liberate Iraq Offers
Effective Alternative to Clinton’s Unraveling Containment ‘Strategy’ (
October 1998), Sen. Lott Shows How and Secures Means to Topple
Saddam (No. 98-D 73, 28
April 1998) and ‘Serious Consequences’: If Clinton Means It, Here’s the Alternative
to His
Failed Strategy of ‘Containing’ Saddam (No. 98-D
33, 24 February 1998).
2. For more on the specific steps that should be taken to support the
Iraqi opposition and
encourage Saddam’s downfall, see Read Our Lips: It’s Not the Weapons, Stupid —
It’s the
Regime (No. 98-D 183, 12 November 1998).
- The UN transforms itself into a world government - September 22, 2024
- Hezbollah is engaged in terrorism, not Israel - September 22, 2024
- Israel must seize the day - September 20, 2024