Bombing Iraq Won't Solve Problem
Newsday December 17, 1998 By Eugene J. Carroll Jr. Retired Rear Adm. Eugene J. Carrol Jr. is Deputy Director of the Center for Defense Information in Washington. SADDAM HUSSEIN is a man who has caused great harm, great pain to many people including the majority of Iraq's citizens. In his time, Hussein has turned a prosperous nation that once was one of the most progressive Muslim societies into an impoverished disaster area. Few tyrants have ever more thoroughly devastated the quality of life for their own subjects or more aggressively attacked their neighbors than Hussein. He is a criminal, an easy man to hate. This being true, it still must be asked what we hope to accomplish by air attacks on Iraq? Depose Hussein? Not a chance? The history of aerial bombardment confirms that it unifies a society and solidifies the political power of the leadership. Will we end Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction? Not a chance. Our intelligence is good but cannot possibly locate easily concealed scientific and engineering facilities. President Bill Clinton only claims to be able to "delay and degrade" Iraqi initiatives. In reality, the attacks are punitive reprisals for Hussein's contemptuous defiance of U.S. demands and the unavoidable consequences of repeated U.S. threats. President Clinton has been criticized for past pinprick attacks and for canceling the planned November strikes altogether. Given his vulnerable political circumstances, Clinton simply could not now compromise American credibility abroad by failing to carry out U.S. threats. The tragic irony is that the blows fall on the already victimized, suffering people of Iraq - not on archvillain Hussein This raises a further question: What other costs may result from the attacks? The first obvious one is increased vulnerability of Americans living in Muslim countries. These include not only our diplomatic and military personnel but large numbers of civilian employees of U.S. companies doing business abroad. Violence predictably begets violence even though it is directed against innocents. There is certainly a risk that we will incur significant political costs in our relations with Islamic nations as well as with Russia and other major nations that resent yet another unilateral action by the world's only superpower. We accord ourselves the right to act militarily in our own interests, but many other nations are growing uneasy about our unwillingness to do so without consultation and consensus within the world community. As the world's foremost military power we have the ability to do that today. But how long will Americans be willing and able to pay the steadily growing military costs of maintaining our military dominance? This year the Pentagon will spend $280 billion and is already asking for $300 billion or more next year to be ready to fight anywhere on the globe. In short, the strikes are the inevitable consequence of America's making its military power the primary instrument of its foreign policy. In this instance, among others, military action cannot significantly affect the situation in Iraq to our advantage. But it will generate real political costs in both the short and the long term. Iraq is a clear signal that America must give serious attention to devising a strategy that places less emphasis on punishing Washington's adversaries and more on leading constructive efforts to resolve issues peacefully as part of a cooperative world community. Copyright 1998, Newsday Inc.
