BY TANYA ALBERT
The Cincinnati Enquirer
The United States had no option but to attack Iraq and the decision has nothing to do with impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, somelocal university experts say.
Instead, a series of hollow threats to attack Iraq combined with a United Nations report Tuesday that said Iraq isn't cooperating with weapons inspectors set the stage for the confrontation.
“This isn't Wag the Dog,” said University of Cincinnati history professor Daniel R. Beaver, who specializes in American diplomacy and military affairs. “That is too obvious, and it will make enemies for Clinton at home.”
“It's hard to imagine Richard Butler (chief U.N. arms inspector) is a pawn of the Clinton administration,” added Miami University political science professor Laura Neack, who studies international security.
Instead, too much much “saber rattling” has gone on with Iraq over the years, Mr. Beaver said.
“We've threatened to use weapons, and haven't,” he said. “From a policy standpoint, we backed ourselves into a corner and had to act. .Ç.Ç. You don't threaten to use weapons unless you are going to use them and use them quickly.”
Although President Clinton has been slow to use military force during his presidency, “there is a point where even the most reluctant will use a big stick,” Ms. Neack said.
“It was pretty clear that they weren't going to comply,” she said.
And force is the only thing Saddam Hussein is going to understand, Ms. Neack said. He doesn't get the message through diplomacy.
“He rose to power through the brutal use of force and he understands it,” Ms. Neack said. “He hasn't cared that sanctions have hurt his people.”
Dictators like Mr. Hussein can't be hurt in any way except with threat of their own wealth or livelihood, Mr. Beaver said.
But this attack is not anything more than symbolic, he said.
“This is part of a degraded policy that will continue indefinitely,” Mr. Beaver said. “I don't see this as ending anything.”
