SUNS  4348 Friday 18 December 1998



UNITED STATES: LATEST ATTACK ON IRAQ RAISES QUESTIONS

New York, Dec 16 (IPS/Farhan Haq) -- The latest U.S. air strikes on Iraq Wednesaday drew a mixed reaction from U.S. politicians, many of whom were sceptical of the true intentions behind the attack.

President Bill Clinton and his administration argued they had little option but to attack after the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) reported that Baghdad once again had failed to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.

All the same, the timing of the attack, just one day before the House of Representatives was scheduled to take up four counts of impeachment against Clinton, and to approve at least one of them, invited open suspicion from the president's political enemies.

"I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office," said Representative Tillie Fowler of Florida, a pro-impeachment Republican. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, another
Republican, said he could not accept the timing of the attack, and would not support the decision to strike Iraq.

Lott, however, joined five other Republican Senators in signing a letter to Clinton urging him to implement a serious policy to remove Iraqi president Saddam Hussein from power.

"Saddam Hussein constitutes a serious long-term threat to the United States and to our allies," the senators wrote. "Government agencies, in particular the departments of State and defence, must end their foot dragging and gear up to implement the law consistent with your public statements."

Senate Foreign relations Committee Chairman, Jesse Helms, who was one of the six signatories, said in a separate statement that "Saddam Hussein has left the United States with no choice but to strike Iraq.... like the vast majority of Americans I will continue to support the actions of our military leaders in the Gulf - only if these strikes are followed by a sustained and vigorous international effort aimed at ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein once and for all."

Other Republicans, however, appeared upset that their careful timing of Clinton's impeachment has been delayed, with House leaders agreeing to suspend impeachment hearings as long as the crisis with Iraq lasted. They wondered what an attack can achieve - beyond angering Iraq and all but dooming U.N. weapons inspections.

"Strategically, it is doubtful that bombing would get rid of (President) Saddam Hussein or make him comply with UNSCOM," said professor Simona Sharoni of American University. "In fact it would end
UNSCOM's role."

"No officials or observers would seriously argue that bombing Iraq will further the weapons inspection regime, destroy hidden banned weapons or produce concealed documents," the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, a Washington-based lobby group, argued. "In fact, it is entirely unclear what the precise purpose of such an attack would be."

Most U.N. diplomats believed that Iraq would not allow any further UNSCOM inspections following the U.S. attack, which began early Thursday Baghdad time. But the United States apparently was gambling that future inspections were unlikely to achieve much, and opted instead to strike at suspected Iraqi weapons sites and key Republican Guard bases.

Clinton's critics contended, however, that the basis for the Iraq strikes involved domestic politics just as much as it did strategic interests. Although the House vote was apparently now delayed, the
attack on Iraq could prompt wavering Republicans to back down from voting against a president who still enjoyed the support of roughly two-thirds of Americans, according to polls.

Alex Castellanos, a Republican pollster, angrily called Clinton "the blackmailer-in-chief" for allegedly allowing the Iraq crisis to hold up the impeachment process.

However, many other U.S. politicians, including Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, rallied behind the president, arguing that Saddam Hussein's lack of cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors had caused the crisis.

Even the negative report from UNSCOM, which accused Iraq of blocking weapons inspections and hiding crucial data, has been viewed with considerable suspicion by some officials. Qin Huasun, China's U.N. ambassador, said many diplomats were "disappointed about the UNSCOM report ... The report is apparently one-sided and does not reflect the cooperation on the ground."

Some U.N. diplomats argued that Richard Butler, UNSCOM's chair and the author of the report, had written his criticisms after meeting with U.S. officials at Washington's diplomatic mission in New York on Monday. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan confirmed that Butler decided to withdraw all U.N. weapons inspectors from Iraq Tuesday night after being advised by U.S. officials.

For a few nations, notably including Russia, Butler's actions appeared questionable, and invited suspicion that Washington played a hand in paving the way for the Iraq missile strikes. Nizar Hamdoon, Iraq's U.N. ambassador, repeated Baghdad's claims Wednesday that "UNSCOM has been heavily influenced by U.S. policies."

Clearly, Iraq often hindered U.N. inspections. But until now, Washington has allowed time for diplomacy to bring Baghdad back into compliance - with Annan in particular allowing Iraq an opportunity to comply with the United Nations, and avoid U.S. attack, in February and November.

This time, not only was there no warning, but the more than 24,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Persian Gulf acted before U.N. diplomats - many of whom continued to weigh in against the use of force even after the attacks began - could discuss the matter.

As a result, Clinton faced the question of why an attack was so urgently needed now. Coming just a few months after the United States struck Sudan and Afghanistan on allegations of supporting terrorism on Aug. 20 - the same day that former White House intern Monica Lewinsky testified about her sexual relationship with Clinton - the rush to strike seems predicated less on any imminent threat from Iraq than on the political threat to the U.S. president.

Both Clinton and the Republicans have clearly appeared tense about the prospect of a divisive impeachment vote, in which the popular president could face ouster from office simply because of charges that he lied under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky.

Both sides have won some valuable time to rethink the impeachment effort - but only because the president in effect sent his troops into battle without consulting the U.S. Senate or the U.N. Security Council.

Ironically, such an action actually could be an impeachable offense - although not one which is likely to be tried in the United States.