Salon Newsreal | Home for Ramadan?

A L S O+T O D A Y

Life of the party?
By Joshua Micah Marshall
With Livingston gone, Tom DeLay runs the party
(12/19/98)
Clinton tries to carry on...and on
By Harry Jaffe
(12/19/98)
A plague on all their houses
By Murray Waas
On Capitol Hill, partisan hard-liners have damaged the constitutional democracy they claim to hold so dear
(12/18/98)
The war at home?
By Jeff Stein
There's not much the U.S. can do to prevent an Iraqi terror attack, besides watch and listen
(12/18/98)
Going through the motions
By Harry Jaffe
Patrick Kennedy and Bob Barr's offstage sparring was the only surprise of Friday's impeachment debate
(12/17/98)
The Impeachment War: What on earth is going on?
Experts, pundits and kibitzers weigh in on Washington's weirdest week
(12/17/98)
And now, back to impeachment
By Bruce Shapiro
Republican skeptic Christopher Shays tries to explain why fence-sitting Republicans suddenly rushed to oppose the president
(12/18/98)
House of adulterers
By David Weir
Unless the GOP is able to convince voters the impeachment proceedings are based on more than disapproval of his private sexual affairs, revelations like Bob Livingston's will continue.
(12/18/98)
Rep. Bob Livingston's remarks
The text of the statement Thursday by the incoming speaker of the House
(12/18/98)

T A B L E+T A L K
Do you agree or disagree with President Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq? Join the debate in Table Talk's International Issues area

R E C E N T L Y
The few, the proud, the relieved
By Jeff Stein
President Clinton risked a revolt within the military if he pulled back from the brink with Iraq once again
(12/17/98)
Baghdad bombing: The right move, the wrong time
By Lori Leibovich
A foreign policy expert says Clinton should have struck Baghdad sooner -- and argues that U.S. sanctions should be lifted
(12/17/98)
Reaping the whirlwind
By Joshua Micah Marshall
Clinton's move against Iraq raises the stakes for both parties in the impeachment debate
(12/17/98)
The whole world is watching -- again
By Todd Gitlin
Left-wing literati turn out to block impeachment
(12/16/98)
Peace, the movie
By Daryl Lindsey
Clinton's three-day visit to the Middle East was full of symbols and photo ops, but precious little in the way of content
(12/16/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

HOME FOR RAMADAN? | PAGE 1, 2
- - - - - - - - - -
So it was left to U.S. Army Gen. Henry Shelton, the reluctant-looking chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to point out the obvious with pictures: The goal of the air campaign is to kill Saddam or neuter him permanently by annihilating his security guard, intelligence units and close-in loyal troops. In the tradition of today's rule of never tell people the entire truth, no one will actually admit that the aim is to kill, or as Cohen put it, "assassinate" Saddam. No, no. I guess Clinton and Cohen probably figured people would run screaming from their living rooms if they heard the truth, and maybe they're right. But killing Saddam is clearly the idea, as a direct hit on his daughter's house last night proved.
It failed, in any case. And if the misses continue, Uncle Sam is going to start looking like Inspector Javert in the Arab world, and a sap at home.
"All it's accomplished is to make Saddam lose his fear of the military power of the United States," former UNSCOM inspector David Kaye told Salon on the eve of the aborted attack on Iraq last November. "The attacks have only made him stronger politically, not hurt him militarily or economically."
That's worse than not attacking at all.
Forget the U.S.-funded Iraqi exile opposition, by the way. It's a frequent-flier program for Republican congressmen, who like to visit the exiles' headquarters in London, which is as close as they'll ever get to Baghdad. Every opposition group inside Iraq has been turned into spinach by Saddam.
This time, the Pentagon appears to be taking Kaye's advice "to attack the security forces, the Special Republican Guards, the people who monitor the telephones, the terror apparatus which keeps people in line and his ministers."
Kaye added, "The reason you want to do this is twofold: One, Saddam does worry about survival, and if his security people are seriously injured, Saddam will wonder if he can detect a coup. He'll have to worry about that rather than developing weapons of mass destruction to use against his neighbors."
Indeed, Shelton rolled out aerial reconnaissance photographs that appeared to show the Directorate of Military Intelligence Headquarters in Baghdad and a barracks of the elite Republican Guard were largely reduced to piles of bricks. He said more than 50 separate targets had been hit in the first wave of strikes involving more than 70 U.S. Navy aircraft and more than 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
All of which makes for heady boasts, great television and a potent rush of testosterone for Americans who are feeling yo-yoed.
How long will the air campaign go on? If Saddam is still standing as Ramadan begins and the bombing stops, he'll be stronger than ever. Like the British after the Nazis bombed London, the Russians after Stalingrad, the Chinese in Korea, Ho Chi Minh after Tet and the Serbs in Bosnia.
Air power just isn't a cure-all. Or even half a cure, most of the time. It's a tool, and a blunt one at that, for limited objectives. If the air campaign fails, we'll only have ourselves to blame. And the only option left will be to send in the Marines.
Who will cheer for that? The stakes are higher than ever.
SALON | Dec. 18, 1998
Jeff Stein covers national security issues for Salon in Washington.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R E L A T E D_.S A L O N_.S T O R I E S
The few, the proud, the relieved President Clinton risked a revolt within the military if he pulled back from the brink with Iraq once again.
By Jeff Stein
Dec. 17, 1998

Baghdad bombing: The right move, the wrong time A foreign policy expert says Clinton should have struck Baghdad sooner -- and argues that U.S. sanctions should be lifted.
By Lori Leibovich
Dec. 17, 1998

Reaping the whirlwind Clinton's move against Iraq raises the stakes for both parties in the impeachment debate.
By Joshua Micah Marshall
Dec. 17, 1998

Toppling Saddam Clinton wants a new government in Baghdad, but he and the Iraqi opposition are unlikely to be up to the task.
By Frank Smyth
Nov. 18, 1998
Target: Saddam The goal is to bring him down this time, says David Kay, who led the first U.N. inspection team in Iraq.
By Jeff Stein
Nov. 13, 1998
Did Bill wag the dog? After Clinton called out the warplanes (in Afghanistan and Sudan) Beltway skeptics said they'd already seen the movie.
By David Corn
Aug. 21, 1998
"Worse than useless" The life of a weapons inspector was hard enough. Kofi Annan has now made it impossible.
By Jeff Stein
March 25, 1998

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Become a Salon member. Click here.

A L S O+T O D A Y Life of the party? By Joshua Micah Marshall With Livingston gone, Tom DeLay runs the party (12/19/98) Clinton tries to carry on...and on By Harry Jaffe (12/19/98) A plague on all their houses By Murray Waas On Capitol Hill, partisan hard-liners have damaged the constitutional democracy they claim to hold so dear (12/18/98) The war at home? By Jeff Stein There's not much the U.S. can do to prevent an Iraqi terror attack, besides watch and listen (12/18/98) Going through the motions By Harry Jaffe Patrick Kennedy and Bob Barr's offstage sparring was the only surprise of Friday's impeachment debate (12/17/98) The Impeachment War: What on earth is going on? Experts, pundits and kibitzers weigh in on Washington's weirdest week (12/17/98) And now, back to impeachment By Bruce Shapiro Republican skeptic Christopher Shays tries to explain why fence-sitting Republicans suddenly rushed to oppose the president (12/18/98) House of adulterers By David Weir Unless the GOP is able to convince voters the impeachment proceedings are based on more than disapproval of his private sexual affairs, revelations like Bob Livingston's will continue. (12/18/98) Rep. Bob Livingston's remarks The text of the statement Thursday by the incoming speaker of the House (12/18/98) T A B L E+T A L K Do you agree or disagree with President Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq? Join the debate in Table Talk's International Issues area R E C E N T L Y The few, the proud, the relieved By Jeff Stein President Clinton risked a revolt within the military if he pulled back from the brink with Iraq once again (12/17/98) Baghdad bombing: The right move, the wrong time By Lori Leibovich A foreign policy expert says Clinton should have struck Baghdad sooner -- and argues that U.S. sanctions should be lifted (12/17/98) Reaping the whirlwind By Joshua Micah Marshall Clinton's move against Iraq raises the stakes for both parties in the impeachment debate (12/17/98) The whole world is watching -- again By Todd Gitlin Left-wing literati turn out to block impeachment (12/16/98) Peace, the movie By Daryl Lindsey Clinton's three-day visit to the Middle East was full of symbols and photo ops, but precious little in the way of content (12/16/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		HOME FOR RAMADAN? \| PAGE 1, 2 - - - - - - - - - - So it was left to U.S. Army Gen. Henry Shelton, the reluctant-looking chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to point out the obvious with pictures: The goal of the air campaign is to kill Saddam or neuter him permanently by annihilating his security guard, intelligence units and close-in loyal troops. In the tradition of today's rule of never tell people the entire truth, no one will actually admit that the aim is to kill, or as Cohen put it, "assassinate" Saddam. No, no. I guess Clinton and Cohen probably figured people would run screaming from their living rooms if they heard the truth, and maybe they're right. But killing Saddam is clearly the idea, as a direct hit on his daughter's house last night proved. It failed, in any case. And if the misses continue, Uncle Sam is going to start looking like Inspector Javert in the Arab world, and a sap at home. "All it's accomplished is to make Saddam lose his fear of the military power of the United States," former UNSCOM inspector David Kaye told Salon on the eve of the aborted attack on Iraq last November. "The attacks have only made him stronger politically, not hurt him militarily or economically." That's worse than not attacking at all. Forget the U.S.-funded Iraqi exile opposition, by the way. It's a frequent-flier program for Republican congressmen, who like to visit the exiles' headquarters in London, which is as close as they'll ever get to Baghdad. Every opposition group inside Iraq has been turned into spinach by Saddam. This time, the Pentagon appears to be taking Kaye's advice "to attack the security forces, the Special Republican Guards, the people who monitor the telephones, the terror apparatus which keeps people in line and his ministers." Kaye added, "The reason you want to do this is twofold: One, Saddam does worry about survival, and if his security people are seriously injured, Saddam will wonder if he can detect a coup. He'll have to worry about that rather than developing weapons of mass destruction to use against his neighbors." Indeed, Shelton rolled out aerial reconnaissance photographs that appeared to show the Directorate of Military Intelligence Headquarters in Baghdad and a barracks of the elite Republican Guard were largely reduced to piles of bricks. He said more than 50 separate targets had been hit in the first wave of strikes involving more than 70 U.S. Navy aircraft and more than 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles. All of which makes for heady boasts, great television and a potent rush of testosterone for Americans who are feeling yo-yoed. How long will the air campaign go on? If Saddam is still standing as Ramadan begins and the bombing stops, he'll be stronger than ever. Like the British after the Nazis bombed London, the Russians after Stalingrad, the Chinese in Korea, Ho Chi Minh after Tet and the Serbs in Bosnia. Air power just isn't a cure-all. Or even half a cure, most of the time. It's a tool, and a blunt one at that, for limited objectives. If the air campaign fails, we'll only have ourselves to blame. And the only option left will be to send in the Marines. Who will cheer for that? The stakes are higher than ever. SALON \| Dec. 18, 1998 Jeff Stein covers national security issues for Salon in Washington. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R E L A T E D_.S A L O N_.S T O R I E S The few, the proud, the relieved President Clinton risked a revolt within the military if he pulled back from the brink with Iraq once again. By Jeff Stein Dec. 17, 1998 Baghdad bombing: The right move, the wrong time A foreign policy expert says Clinton should have struck Baghdad sooner -- and argues that U.S. sanctions should be lifted. By Lori Leibovich Dec. 17, 1998 Reaping the whirlwind Clinton's move against Iraq raises the stakes for both parties in the impeachment debate. By Joshua Micah Marshall Dec. 17, 1998 Toppling Saddam Clinton wants a new government in Baghdad, but he and the Iraqi opposition are unlikely to be up to the task. By Frank Smyth Nov. 18, 1998 Target: Saddam The goal is to bring him down this time, says David Kay, who led the first U.N. inspection team in Iraq. By Jeff Stein Nov. 13, 1998 Did Bill wag the dog? After Clinton called out the warplanes (in Afghanistan and Sudan) Beltway skeptics said they'd already seen the movie. By David Corn Aug. 21, 1998 "Worse than useless" The life of a weapons inspector was hard enough. Kofi Annan has now made it impossible. By Jeff Stein March 25, 1998 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.