U.S. Is on Solid Ground in Its Strikes Against Iraq

Whether the latest U.S. military confrontation with Iraq will end with Tuesday’s missile attacks on selected air defense targets and the follow-up action on Wednesday or whether there’s more to come largely depends on what Saddam Hussein does in the next day or so. If Hussein withdraws the Republican Guard units he sent into Kurdish-inhabited northern Iraq over the weekend, President Clinton can be expected to proclaim that the U.S. mission of repelling aggression has been accomplished and the integrity of U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq has been upheld. If the Iraqi strongman instead chooses to continue seeking out and killing his Kurdish enemies it seems all but certain that more U.S. strikes will take place. Clinton says he ordered the cruise-missile attacks against Iraq to remind Hussein that “reckless acts have consequences.” The implicit warning is that further recklessness will invite further punitive consequences.

The decision to concentrate the missile attacks in southern Iraq, more than 600 miles from the scene of Hussein’s aggression, makes sense both politically and militarily.

First, by steering clear of military action in the north, the United States wisely avoided any appearance of taking sides in the murky power struggles that have come to characterize internal Kurdish politics. One of those factional disputes has lately seen Iran, Hussein’s neighbor and longtime nemesis, providing military support to one Iraqi Kurdish party even as the Iranians continue to suppress their own Kurdish minority. Meanwhile, a second Kurdish party appealed to Hussein to intervene on its behalf, something which he apparently was not just willing but eager to do. By taking the military steps it has against Saddam Hussein, the United States has been able to uphold the principle that aggression by his regime should not go unpunished, while sidestepping the trap of seeming to adopt a partisan role in the internecine Kurdish conflict.

Second, by targeting radar installations and surface-to-air missile sites in the south, and by unilaterally extending the southern “no-fly” zone from which Iraqi aircraft are barred, the United States has moved to protect its planes and air crews should future air strikes against Baghdad or other targets be needed. If the 27 missiles fired Tuesday and the 17 more released Wednesday in a “restrike” were successful, Iraq is now much more vulnerable to air attacks from the south, over the international waters of the Persian Gulf. That’s the preferred route for attack, since it avoids the complications of trying to get permission to fly over other countries. And by extending the no-fly zone by one degree of latitude--about 70 miles--the United States effectively deprives Iraq of the use of at least two air bases as well as an important military training range.

The United States moved against Iraq under its perhaps arguable interpretation of Security Council Resolution 688, which condemns Baghdad for persecuting its minorities. Only Britain among the major members of the coalition that in 1991 repelled Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait endorses that interpretation, though Germany and Japan among other allies promptly supported U.S. actions. Too much, however, can be made of whether Resolution 688 sanctions what was done on Tuesday and Wednesday. The unarguable fact is that in the face of Hussein’s provocation a quick and proportionate response was required, lest passivity invite further aggressiveness. That response, which was generally supported by presidential candidate Bob Dole and other GOP leaders, was delivered.

Whether more is to follow depends on how much punishment Saddam Hussein is prepared to risk. Clinton, not least because he is in the middle of a campaign for reelection, can be expected to stand his ground. In this case he’s on solid ground, doing the right thing in the right way in behalf of a clear and vital principle.