When Force of Arms Becomes Unavoidable : Iraqi provocations left the Western powers with little choice

Military force should always be the last resort when disputes between nations threaten peace or erode the rule of international law. On Wednesday, recourse to that last resort became unavoidable.

Long days of wearisome diplomatic talks at the United Nations and elsewhere had failed to convince Iraq that it could no longer violate with impunity the U.N. resolutions imposed after the liberation of Kuwait nearly two years ago. Neither did explicit threats of attack from the United States and its major Western allies succeed in shifting Saddam Hussein from the defiant posture he had struck. In the end only two choices were left: to tacitly accede to Baghdad’s cheating on its agreements and evasion of its responsibilities or to try to compel cooperation through a show of force aimed at military facilities. There was little question about which choice would be made.

WEEKS OF WARNING: No doubt there will be those who try to depict the U.S.-led raids on Iraqi antiaircraft missile sites as the bitter final act of a departing President, vengefully seeking to further punish a tyrant he had bested in battle but could not drive from power. Such a view is nonsense. George Bush didn’t create this crisis nor did he leap with undue haste into a military confrontation. Every effort has been made to secure Baghdad’s good behavior since Dec. 27, when Hussein tested U.S. and U.N. resolve by violating the no-fly zone below the 32nd Parallel in southern Iraq. Iraq’s consistent response has been to heat up the atmosphere of crisis, first by the threatening relocation of its surface-to-air missiles in the no-fly zone, then by repeated forays into Kuwait despite stern Security Council warnings to desist. There was nothing ambiguous about these provocations nor, in all probability, anything coincidental about their timing.

Hussein knows that without American diplomatic and military leadership neither the Security Council nor the allied forces that rolled back his aggression against Kuwait could again be easily stirred into effective action. Chances are he decided to gamble that Bush’s lame-duck Administration would be too preoccupied with its imminent departure, or too demoralized by its recent electoral defeat, to exert that leadership in response to his probing. And if he miscalculated, then what? Then, if nothing else, he would again be able to present himself to Iraqis and to the Arab world as the defender of his nation’s sovereignty against the overwhelming might of aggressive Western powers. Such a depiction, which for Arabs taps historical anti-Western sentiments, is in fact likely to win him some sympathetic attention.

INCORRIGIBLE STILL: The destruction of a number of Iraqi missile batteries and the temporary stationing of an Army battalion in Kuwait to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to its independence will not, of course, be enough to transform Hussein into a model citizen of his region. In material and political terms he has in fact probably paid a cheap price for his defiance of U.N. resolutions, at least for now. In that case, what has been accomplished? Two things of importance.

First, the Security Council has made admirably clear that it continues to insist on Baghdad’s full compliance with relevant resolutions, and is ready to sanction force to achieve it. Second, the United States has again shown that it can quickly commit formidable military power in pursuit of necessary objectives. This week’s actions were endorsed by President-elect Bill Clinton, who has made clear that American interest in upholding U.N. resolutions on Iraq won’t end or weaken with next week’s change of administrations. This evidence of continuity in U.S. foreign policy is necessary and welcome. But--Saddam Hussein being Saddam Hussein--look for a new Iraqi test of U.S. will before the Clinton presidency is too many weeks old.