U.S. and Britain Strike Iraq; Impeachment Debate on Hold

U.S. and British forces launched a fierce aerial attack on Iraq on Wednesday, sending waves of missiles and planes on deadly sorties in response to Saddam Hussein’s continued obstruction of U.N. weapons inspectors.

The timing of the attack ignited an immediate political firestorm in Washington. Senior Republicans accused President Clinton of rushing to launch a military offensive less than 24 hours before the House of Representatives was scheduled to begin debating his impeachment on charges of perjury, abuse of power and obstruction of justice resulting from the Monica S. Lewinsky affair.

The House impeachment debate was postponed for at least a day to avoid undermining the military action.

Clinton gave the go-ahead for the strike, involving waves by cruise missiles and naval and land-based aircraft, shortly after returning to the White House from a trip to the Middle East.

The order was issued after chief U.N. arms inspector Richard Butler reported that Iraqi intransigence had effectively neutered the international inspection program undertaken in the aftermath of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

In a televised address to the nation, Clinton accused Hussein of deliberately thwarting the U.N. inspection program so that he could continue to build a deadly arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

“Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles,” Clinton said. “With Saddam, there’s one big difference: He has used them--not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.”

The attack began about 1 a.m. Iraq time, or 2 p.m. PST, and is expected to continue at least through today. Clinton said the objective is to “degrade” Iraqi weapons programs, destroying facilities that Baghdad has placed off limits to the inspectors.

Clinton’s decision to launch the biggest military offensive of his presidency on the eve of his impeachment proceedings stunned many lawmakers and political onlookers.

This Time, There Was No Warning to Iraq

Unlike the situation a month ago, when Clinton called off an assault after warplanes were already flying toward Iraqi targets, this time there was no warning to Baghdad to comply, and no attempt to find a diplomatic solution.

But there was also no immediate indication of what direction the Clinton administration’s future policy toward Iraq will take.

The strike clearly represents a punishing response to Hussein’s repeated efforts to frustrate the postwar objectives of the international community. But it is not expected to eliminate Hussein’s capability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, and it may well ensure the death of the U.N. inspection program.

In Baghdad, Hussein issued a defiant statement, urging Iraqis to “fight the enemies of God, the Arab nation and humanity. God willing, you will be the victors.”

“We know what angers you is not their aggression but because they are not fighting you face to face, relying on their high technology, which is in no way a measure of bravery,” he also said in the statement carried by the official Iraqi News Agency.

At least two people were killed and 30 injured in the raid, a doctor in Baghdad told Associated Press.

No False Acquiescence by Hussein Allowed

Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Washington and London were determined to prevent Hussein from avoiding air and missile strikes by appearing to acquiesce to allied demands, as he did Nov. 14.

“If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler’s report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons,” Clinton said.

The assault comes on the eve of a season considered holy by Christians, Muslims and Jews alike, potentially marring celebrations of Christmas, Hanukkah and Ramadan, the Muslim month of prayer and fasting that begins this weekend.

Although Clinton said he wanted to launch the operation before Ramadan, the timing of the attack is certain to foster resentment in much of the Islamic world.

“For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and therefore would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East,” the president said. “That is something we wanted very much to avoid, without giving Iraq a month’s head start to prepare for potential action against it.”

Nevertheless, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen said Wednesday that the attack--dubbed Operation Desert Fox--would last at least another day. Cohen pointedly refused to predict that it would end before the start of the holy month.

Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine, also defended the timing of the attack, rejecting GOP suggestions that it was connected with the impeachment inquiry.

He said he and the uniformed military commanders “have absolutely no doubt this is the right decision; this is the right time for us to move. . . . What we say matters. And if we lay down markers that say that ‘unless you comply, you are going to face a military operation’ and there is noncompliance, a failure to take action under those circumstances, I think, would in fact impair our national security interests for some time to come.”

Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declined to discuss the number of missiles and bombs raining down on Iraq, or their intended targets.

Military experts believe that the Pentagon has developed a list of several hundred potential targets scattered across Iraq, many of them sites implicated in Hussein’s weapons programs.

Last month’s aborted attack was preceded by a concerted diplomatic effort to line up most segments of the world community in opposition to Iraq’s obstruction of weapons inspections.

Although some countries expressed reservations at the time about the use of force, virtually all agreed that if the dispute resulted in military action, Hussein would be to blame.

France Distances Itself From Effort

The speed with which Wednesday’s attack followed Butler’s report left no time for a similar effort to win international support.

France, a U.S. ally in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a member of the Persian Gulf War coalition, distanced itself from the attack. The Foreign Ministry issued a statement expressing regret that Iraq had failed to cooperate with the weapons inspectors but deploring the “escalation” to military action, which it said posed “grave human consequences” for ordinary Iraqis.

Russia criticized both the military strike and Butler’s commission. Moscow said Butler must bear some responsibility for his inability to negotiate a successful inspection program with Baghdad.

And several commentators throughout the Middle East mocked Clinton, saying he is bombing Baghdad to distract attention from his impending impeachment.

Late in the evening, members convened a formal session of the U.N. Security Council to consider the attack.

“I speak to you now while the rockets and bombs are falling over the villages and cities of Iraq,” said Iraqi Ambassador Nizar Hamdoun. “I am not speaking about a fireworks display.”

Hamdoun said that Iraq had been suffering for the past eight years from “the most comprehensive and horrendous sanctions in human history.”

He labeled the attack by the United States and Britain as the “most glaring evidence of the authority of absolute power.”

Hamdoun said the military action came before the council could decide whether Baghdad had complied with weapons inspectors.

“The members of the council were not allowed to complete their discussions,” he said.

“There have been casualties,” said Russian Ambassador Sergei V. Lavrov.

Lavrov, a strong supporter of Iraq on the council, said the United States and Britain had violated the U.N. Charter. “It is the Security Council alone which has the right to determine what steps should be taken to restore international peace and security,” he said.

China also said that the attack had violated the U.N. Charter and norms governing international law.

“Iraq had resumed its cooperation,” said Chinese Ambassador Qin Huasun. “Progress also had been made in the verification efforts.”

But Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said she was satisfied with the level of international support, although she said the opposition by Russia and France--both members of the Security Council--was not constructive. She said Moscow and Paris have offered no better proposals for forcing Iraq to comply with U.N. resolutions ordering it to end its ballistic missile and nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs.

Albright conceded that there is no guarantee that Hussein will resume cooperation with the arms inspectors after the attack. In fact, most nongovernmental diplomatic experts said they believe that the use of military force will end any chance of resuming the inspections.

Missiles and Bombs Are Strike Weapons

Defense officials said the strikes included cruise missiles from U.S. warships and B-52 bombers, and bombing by Air Force and Navy attack fighters in the region and by British Tornado jets. The U.S. aircraft carrier Enterprise is already in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. aircraft carrier Carl Vinson will arrive in the Gulf before the end of this week as part of a routine rotation of forces, but the timing will permit the Navy to call on two aircraft carrier battle groups for as long as the attack continues.

The Pentagon had deployed more than 300 Tomahawk cruise missiles in the Gulf region before the attack began. It could not be immediately determined how many of those weapons were used in the initial assault.

Clinton, Blair, Cohen, Albright and other officials who talked to reporters about the strike emphasized that Hussein has repeatedly made and broken pledges to cooperate with weapons inspectors. All said the allies gave Hussein ample opportunity to avoid military action.

“The United States did not go looking for this fight,” Albright said. “As the chief United States diplomat, I can tell you we explored every diplomatic possibility. We gave Saddam Hussein the extra chance, and he blew it.”

Blair said events of the past several years demonstrate that Hussein “has no intention whatever of keeping to his word. He is a serial breaker of promises.

“There is no realistic alternative to military force,” Blair added. “We are taking this military action with real regret but also with real determination. We have exhausted all other avenues. We act because we must.”

Nevertheless, some of Clinton’s Republican critics accused him of using military action to divert attention from impeachment.

In a move that stunned many lawmakers, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said he does not support the military strike, and he questioned Clinton’s motives in authorizing it.

Lott said he was assured by administration officials that the attack is not connected to the impeachment vote but added, “I cannot support this military action . . . at this time.”

The Senate leader said Clinton should not undertake military action unless he is ready to launch an all-out assault aimed at killing or overthrowing Hussein.

“I could support a future military operation with clearly defined objectives, among them the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and the eradication of his capability to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction,” Lott said. “I am opposed to endangering the lives of brave American men and women in the military for action in Iraq that will not effect real change in that nation.”

But former Secretary of State James A. Baker III defended Clinton, saying he did the right thing at the right time.

“There probably was some imperative with respect to speed here [because] the last couple of times that Saddam has stuck his finger in our eye, we’ve diddled around,” said Baker, who served in the Bush administration.

He said immediate action was needed to preserve the element of surprise and to launch the attack before the start of Ramadan.

Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher also supported the strikes. “The action in Iraq today was absolutely essential in view of Saddam Hussein’s intransigence,” he said. “The attack should be heavy and sustained. It merits the full support of the American people on a bipartisan basis.”

Times staff writers Tyler Marshall and Alissa J. Rubin in Washington, John J. Goldman in New York, John-Thor Dahlburg in Paris and Frank Del Olmo in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Video of President Clinton’s address to the nation is on The Times’ Web site: https://www.latimes.com/iraq.

The Day’s Events

ON THE GULF

* Collision course: Clinton concluded he had little choice. A45

* Loyal ally: Britain stepped up to play key role. A47

* Massive strike: Military assault is largest of Clinton administration. A45

* Clinton text: “We had to act, and now.” A54

****

ON IMPEACHMENT

* The inevitable: House debate could begin Friday. A48

* The rallies: Forces pro and con stage impeachment rallies. A48