Airstrikes Would Push Clinton Into New Territory

President Clinton approves an airstrike against Iraq--and the American public rewards him with enthusiastic support and rising popularity.

That, at least, is how events unfolded five years ago, shortly after Clinton became the nation’s commander in chief. But today, as the White House weighs a punishing series of air attacks on Iraq, with the possibility of many civilian deaths and mortal risk to U.S. fliers, Clinton confronts a situation unlike any he has faced during his presidency.

International support for such action is meager; the goals are vague and perhaps immeasurable; and the American public appears ambivalent.

A bombing campaign against Iraq--to force its leader, President Saddam Hussein, to allow unrestricted U.N. weapons inspections--would represent by far Clinton’s largest use of lethal force and would contrast dramatically with other military actions he has endorsed, which generally had humanitarian or nation-building aims.

“This is the difference between peacekeeping and war,” John R. Bolton, a State Department official in the Bush administration, said of the stiff crosscurrents that Clinton now confronts. “And it’s a real difference.”

To some critics, Clinton has created the dilemma for himself by embracing a military strategy of high-tech bombing, which, while appearing eminently doable, does not promise a permanent result. This approach also reflects the Clinton administration’s desire to limit U.S. risk by avoiding reliance on ground forces.

Meanwhile, Clinton’s stated goals, such as to “seriously reduce” Hussein’s military capacity, are more vague than such easily grasped aims as eliminating the dictator or destroying his arsenal--even though these tasks are harder to accomplish.

Indeed, Clinton suggested Tuesday that an attack might not have permanent results and that the United States might have to strike Iraq in the future.

“The administration is now proposing a course of action that doesn’t seem to fix the problem at hand, so there’s some dissatisfaction with it,” said Richard Haass, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution and a Bush advisor during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

At the same time, the president is being pressured from another direction altogether, by some who argue that he has failed to make a convincing case for using force at all. “What do we lose by waiting, what do we lose by containing Saddam while the U.N. continues efforts for a diplomatic solution?” asked Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.).

By some measures, public support for U.S. strikes against Iraq has slipped. Wednesday’s spectacle of antiwar demonstrators competing with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and National Security Advisor Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger at a Columbus, Ohio, “town meeting” designed to showcase the administration policy, was a potentially embarrassing episode. Last week, Congress was unable to agree before it adjourned on a resolution supporting the president.

A Gallup Poll for Cable News Network and USA Today conducted Feb. 13-15, for example, found that 41% of Americans approved military action to resolve the dispute in Iraq over United Nations weapons inspections. That support was down from 50% two weeks earlier. In the newer poll, a slight majority--54%--opposed military action, up from 46% on Feb. 1.

“You’d normally expect what I’d call a ‘rally-around-the-flag’ effect,” said John Mueller, a political scientist at the University of Rochester in New York and author of “War, Presidents and Public Opinion.” But for now, “there seems to be a fair amount of reticence,” he said, “over whether this is worth it, whether this is going to do much good.”

The crosscurrents of political pressure, while not entirely new, seem all the more striking given the magnitude of destruction Clinton could approve if a peaceful solution in Iraq do not found. Moreover, they underscore the peculiarities of the situation he faces, compared with earlier missions, which had clearer objectives and broader support.

The 1993 U.S. attack on Iraq with 23 cruise missiles, for example, came in response to revelations that Hussein’s agents allegedly had sought to assassinate President Bush in Kuwait. The action won bipartisan praise from Congress.

While the public was deeply split over Clinton’s deployment of troops to Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995, the effort at establishing peace was supported by Europeans, and Clinton’s more recent decision to prolong the stay of U.S. troops in the Balkans raised little domestic controversy.

Many Americans opposed sending U.S. troops to Haiti in 1994, but the goal of nation-building was comprehensible and the mission proved remarkably cost-free.

Even some of those who have spoken sympathetically about Clinton’s goals remain somewhat uncertain of U.S. policy. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Clinton made a “compelling” case for action this week but left unclear U.S. plans to strike the sources of Hussein’s power as well as any long-term goals of undermining his regime.

Yet others point out that, for all the complexities, Clinton would be able to conduct a brief campaign against Iraq even with a less-than-enthusiastic public or Congress.

“This is going to be short even if it’s not sweet,” said Haass of the Brookings Institution. “His exposure here is modest. I don’t see where it [limited support] stops him.”