The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
>From the pages of the International Herald Tribune: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paris, Thursday, August 27, 1998 Forget the 'Severest Consequences' for Saddam -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Charles Krauthammer The Washington Post -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON - Last week's air raids in Afghanistan and Sudan served to compensate for, and deflect attention from, the total surrender of the Clinton administration in the face of Saddam Hussein's determination to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction. On the same day the Tomahawk missiles went out, the United States was forced to support a humiliating Security Council statement that pitiably called Saddam's expulsion of inspectors ''totally unacceptable'' while dropping previous warnings of ''severest consequences.'' Having announced to the world that he would no longer send bombers out after Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Bill Clinton sent missiles out after Osama bin Laden. Of course, the bin Laden raid is fully justified on its own terms. When American embassies are attacked by a terrorist group openly declaring war on the United States, retaliation is to be expected. But for six years this administration has pursued a foreign policy of romantic internationalism, trusting American security to treaties whose purpose is to abolish all the nastiness of the world - chemical weapons, nuclear tests, global warming - with the stroke of a pen. Its only activism has been the injection of American force into two areas posing no threat whatsoever to the United States (Bosnia and Haiti) and deepening U.S. involvement in a third sideshow (Somalia). All the while, it abjured any significant use of force against those posing real and deadly threats to the United States: North Korea, Iraq, Iran, terrorists. In 1994, North Korea broke the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and embarked on nuke building. How did Mr. Clinton react? By agreeing to supply it indefinitely with free oil while the United States and allies build for it two (ostensibly safer) $5 billion nuclear reactors in return for a promise to freeze its weapons program. It turns out that while taking this gigantic bribe North Korea was building a huge new nuclear facility inside a mountain. Add now Iraq. In a televised address to the nation in February, Mr. Clinton starkly declared what was at stake if Saddam were allowed to build his weapons of mass destruction: ''If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity.'' That was just six months ago. And now? The speech is retracted; the policy of forcing inspections is dead. Saddam can build his chemical, biological and nuclear arsenal unmolested. In the face of these retreats, Mr. Clinton could not remain motionless after the bombing of two American embassies without forfeiting what little international credibility he had left. The administration itself inadvertently made the connection to Iraq when it justified the attack on the Sudanese factory with the claim that senior Iraqi scientists were helping to make VX there. Well, senior Iraqi scientists are making a lot more VX in Iraq. But Mr. Clinton has given up the idea of raising his hand against these plants, so Sudan's served as a useful proxy. Even a proxy attack can be useful if it signals a turning point in Clinton foreign policy, a decision to no longer permit America to be the doormat of tyrants. More likely, however, the bin Laden raids will turn out to be a spasm, a solitary and desperate attempt to divert attention from the foreign policy of least resistance, and failure. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To be removed/added, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk, NOT the whole list. Archived at http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~saw27/casi/discuss.html