Time for Talk Ran Out, Experts Say

Despite the many obstacles that weighed heavily against a military strike on Iraq, President Clinton concluded that he had little choice but to order Wednesday’s aerial assault: The two nations had been headed almost irrevocably on a collision course for more than a year, say senior U.S. officials and experts on Iraq.

In three earlier showdowns--in the fall of 1997, in February and last month--the United States opted at the eleventh hour not to act. Each time it warned that further violations of Iraq’s promise to cooperate with U.N. arms inspectors monitoring the elimination of weapons of mass destruction would provoke punishment.

In a briefing after the president’s address, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on Wednesday echoed the frustration felt within the Clinton administration.

“We exhausted every diplomatic approach and every possibility. Month after month, we have given Iraq chance after chance to move from confrontation to cooperation, and we have explored and exhausted every diplomatic action,” she said.

Deferring punishment one more time would have seriously damaged U.S. credibility, encouraged Iraq’s efforts to maintain its U.N.-banned weapons and undermined arguably the most important precedent established in the post-Cold War world--that aggression will not be tolerated by the international community.

“Clinton was boxed in,” said Judith Yaphe, an Iraq specialist at National Defense University in Washington. “The choice was to do nothing and lose whatever is left of U.S. credibility, or to do it. At some point, you have to carry through with the threat or you lose that credible use of force that backs up diplomacy. You have to show that enough is enough.

“Otherwise, policy is out the window and the U.N. resolutions are effectively finished,” she said, “and there’s no way we’re going to be able to get further compliance from Baghdad on any issue.”

The turning point came over the weekend, when the administration was briefed about the latest U.N. assessment of Iraq’s cooperation with arms inspectors.

Even while trying to negotiate with the Israelis and Palestinians during Clinton’s visit to the Mideast, his national security team began to focus on the grim conclusions about Iraq.

What convinced the administration that it could no longer hold off military action was the fact that not only did Iraq continue to stall in handing over details on the contents and location of its arsenal, but it also had engaged in new violations that included blocking U.N. weapons inspectors from offices of the ruling Arab Baath Socialist Party, preventing inspections and other U.N. activities on Friday, the Muslim day of prayer, and failing to hand over documents.

The documents about Iraqi supplies, sources and development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles have become a barometer of the latest showdown. The government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was supposed to turn them over within 15 days of the 1991 cease-fire ending the Persian Gulf War. Now, more than 2,500 days later, most have yet to be surrendered.

U.S. officials said Wednesday that some documents may have been destroyed recently to avoid having to turn them over.

Without a full inventory of what Iraq initially produced, the U.N. weapons teams reported that they will never be able to fully show that the Iraqis’ arsenal has been eliminated.

“The documents are now at least as important as the weapons themselves--and maybe even more critical to eventually concluding Iraq’s disarmament,” a senior U.S. official said.

The administration increasingly fears that Iraq’s ability to engage in new violations could lead to further slippage that would make the U.N. disarmament effort a sham--and ultimately unsuccessful.

In his Wednesday address to the nation, Clinton called the new violations “stark” and “disturbing.”

Other factors contributed to the sense that the time had come to strike back.

The first was international support. The original Gulf War coalition, which included nearly three dozen countries, had virtually disintegrated until last month, when Iraq’s violations of U.N. resolutions led even key Arab countries such as Syria and Egypt to strongly back U.S. threats.

Washington was concerned that it would not again get that kind of open support.

The president’s Mideast trip, during which he visited the Gaza Strip and won standing ovations from the Palestine National Council, was another diplomatic boost that encouraged Washington to act while the Arabs were on board--in stark contrast to earlier crises with Iraq, when Hussein had a decisive edge in Arab sympathies.

The second factor was the beginning of Ramadan, the Muslim month of fasting from dawn to dusk. Washington did not want to be engaged in an air assault, even if it only involved attacks on military targets, at a time when people in the region were fasting, U.S. officials acknowledged.

“One reason we wanted to bring Operation Desert Storm to an end as soon as possible [in 1991] was so as not to overlap with Ramadan. There was great concern because of the backlash from fighting Muslims when they’re not eating,” Yaphe said.

“We were afraid it would isolate the U.S. and create a storm of protest against us.”

Yet the United States also did not want a month to pass before it could act, a delay that might cost it public opinion, especially in light of domestic political events--such as a vote by the full House on impeachment--that might occur in the interim.

A third factor was U.S. military deployment. Pentagon planners saw an opportunity to launch a strike at a time when U.S. military forces in the region were at unusually high levels of strength and readiness.

As the Christmas holidays approached, many units stationed in the region, including the aircraft carrier Eisenhower and a wing of B-52 bombers on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, were due to be relieved by incoming units. For a narrow period, the number of naval aircraft available to strike targets in Iraq is expected to more than double and the bomb-hauling capacity of U.S. bombers to go up by hundreds of thousands of pounds.

With the arrival of several more ships in the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson battle group, the number of Tomahawk cruise missiles in the area will double as well.

With the arrival of additional forces in the region, “things just fell into place,” said Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Military officials also noted that the imminent start of the Pentagon’s Persian Gulf military exercises, dubbed “Intrinsic Action,” will further boost U.S. military levels in the Gulf.

With U.S. military muscle temporarily bulked up, Pentagon officials not only gained confidence that they could handle any resistance that Iraq might throw up, they also reasoned that by mustering larger forces in the first place, they could mount overpowering assaults on very short notice, achieving complete surprise.

Times staff writer Melissa Healy contributed to this report.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Target: Iraq

U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf launched hundreds of satellite-guided cruise missiles.The Pentagon didn’t immediately announce specific targets, though explosions were reported near Baghdad.