Salon Newsreal | The few, the proud, the relieved

A L S O+T O D A Y

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)
President Clinton's statement
Text of the president's briefing on Iraqi airstrikes
(12/17/98)
Tony Blair's Address
Text of the British prime minister's remarks on Baghdad bombings
(12/17/98)

T A B L E+T A L K
Are you outraged over the impeachment drive? Vent your frustration in the Politics area of Table Talk

R E C E N T L Y
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)
Here comes the judge
By Jeff Stein
Chief Justice William Rehnquist's writings on impeachment contain good news for President Clinton
(12/16/98)
City of self-hate
By Greg Critser
Why Los Angeles elites love being bashed by Mike Davis
(12/15/98)
A kinder, gentler lynch mob
By Gary Kamiya
The GOP confirms the most brain-dead radical stereotypes from the '60s
(12/15/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

The few, the proud, the relieved
Commentary
PRESIDENT CLINTON RISKED A REVOLT WITHIN THE MILITARY IF HE PULLED BACK FROM THE BRINK WITH IRAQ ONCE AGAIN.

BY JEFF STEIN
Citing Saddam Hussein's perfidy and the approach of Ramadan, an embattled President Clinton Wednesday hurled scores of cruise missiles at Iraq. An important unspoken factor in his equation, however, was the specter of a revolt in U.S. military ranks if he pulled back from an attack once again.
Almost exactly one month ago, the president sent forth an immense American naval and air armada to attack Iraq, citing Saddam's refusal to cooperate with United Nations inspectors looking for evidence of Iraq's covert nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.
Then, as now, Clinton declared Saddam's obstinacy "unacceptable." Then he pulled back. This time he attacked.
During last month's standoff, the armada was left to steam in circles, leaving some 24,000 U.S. military men and women aboard 22 ships -- eight armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles -- and 201 military aircraft -- among them 15 Air Force B-52 bombers also equipped with cruise missiles -- to polish their weapons, stand inspections and write letters home. It was an intolerable situation for military morale, and provoked their already low respect for the draft-dodging president to plunge even further.
"This is ridiculous," a senior Air Force intelligence officer wrote me shortly after November's stand down. "You can't send these people out there and back again and again and expect them to be ready, or certainly not at top readiness, when you keep doing this. Morale is awful. It's going to cause accidents. People are going to get hurt, and it's all going to be that whack-off's fault."
Clinton's relations with the military never really recovered from his first month in office, when a young White House staffer told a highly decorated officer that she didn't like his uniform, and the fledgling administration uncorked its gays in the military initiative. Somalia, with its film of the corpses of American soldiers dragged through the streets, plunged relations further and nearly blue-lined after news broke that Clinton had kept the Joint Chiefs out of the decisionmaking on the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan last August.
All this may pale against the specter of thousands of Iraqi civilians dying at the hands of American smart bombs and cruise missiles, but it surely was a pivotal factor the struggling president had to take into account when considering Saddam's provocation again this week. If he'd ignored it, the wrath of ordinary military men and women might have seeped, if not surged, into public view -- providing even more ammunition to anti-Clinton Republicans. Losing the military's respect is a much better reason to string up the commander in chief than lying about a blow job.
Gearing up to wage war and risk lives, organizationally and emotionally, is the hardest task a military unit has. Going into battle is a snap compared with getting there. Equipment is loaded, trucks move, tanks roll, ships weigh anchor, planes take off, troops move out. Spouses, mothers, fathers, parents and children kiss each other goodbye, with the thought in their mind that they might never see each other again.
Mobilization is an incredibly dangerous stage. A military unit is one of the most dangerous environments on earth -- more toxic, and more accident-prone, than an open-hearth steel factory. Body-crunching accidents can, and do, happen. The Pentagon factors in scores, if not hundreds, of troops to die in ordinary accidents during a huge military deployment. More American troops died from traffic accidents in Operation Desert Storm than in the assaults on Iraq and Kuwait in 1991.
Critics are already knocking Clinton for playing "Wag the Dog," attempting to divert attention from his impeachment woes. But they are wrong. Iraq is a dangerous regional power, with biological, chemical and perhaps even nuclear weapons, and a demonstrated disposition to use them. Minus his personal problems, Clinton's position in relation to Iraq today is more akin to Dwight Eisenhower's on the eve of D-Day in 1944, when rain squalls and high seas kept the troops bottled up and increasingly restive in England.
It was now or never for Eisenhower the tactician then, and it is now or never for Clinton now.
SALON | Dec. 17, 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
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 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) President Clinton's statement Text of the president's briefing on Iraqi airstrikes (12/17/98) Tony Blair's Address Text of the British prime minister's remarks on Baghdad bombings (12/17/98) T A B L E+T A L K Are you outraged over the impeachment drive? Vent your frustration in the Politics area of Table Talk R E C E N T L Y 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) Here comes the judge By Jeff Stein Chief Justice William Rehnquist's writings on impeachment contain good news for President Clinton (12/16/98) City of self-hate By Greg Critser Why Los Angeles elites love being bashed by Mike Davis (12/15/98) A kinder, gentler lynch mob By Gary Kamiya The GOP confirms the most brain-dead radical stereotypes from the '60s (12/15/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		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 Citing Saddam Hussein's perfidy and the approach of Ramadan, an embattled President Clinton Wednesday hurled scores of cruise missiles at Iraq. An important unspoken factor in his equation, however, was the specter of a revolt in U.S. military ranks if he pulled back from an attack once again. Almost exactly one month ago, the president sent forth an immense American naval and air armada to attack Iraq, citing Saddam's refusal to cooperate with United Nations inspectors looking for evidence of Iraq's covert nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. Then, as now, Clinton declared Saddam's obstinacy "unacceptable." Then he pulled back. This time he attacked. During last month's standoff, the armada was left to steam in circles, leaving some 24,000 U.S. military men and women aboard 22 ships -- eight armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles -- and 201 military aircraft -- among them 15 Air Force B-52 bombers also equipped with cruise missiles -- to polish their weapons, stand inspections and write letters home. It was an intolerable situation for military morale, and provoked their already low respect for the draft-dodging president to plunge even further. "This is ridiculous," a senior Air Force intelligence officer wrote me shortly after November's stand down. "You can't send these people out there and back again and again and expect them to be ready, or certainly not at top readiness, when you keep doing this. Morale is awful. It's going to cause accidents. People are going to get hurt, and it's all going to be that whack-off's fault." Clinton's relations with the military never really recovered from his first month in office, when a young White House staffer told a highly decorated officer that she didn't like his uniform, and the fledgling administration uncorked its gays in the military initiative. Somalia, with its film of the corpses of American soldiers dragged through the streets, plunged relations further and nearly blue-lined after news broke that Clinton had kept the Joint Chiefs out of the decisionmaking on the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan last August. All this may pale against the specter of thousands of Iraqi civilians dying at the hands of American smart bombs and cruise missiles, but it surely was a pivotal factor the struggling president had to take into account when considering Saddam's provocation again this week. If he'd ignored it, the wrath of ordinary military men and women might have seeped, if not surged, into public view -- providing even more ammunition to anti-Clinton Republicans. Losing the military's respect is a much better reason to string up the commander in chief than lying about a blow job. Gearing up to wage war and risk lives, organizationally and emotionally, is the hardest task a military unit has. Going into battle is a snap compared with getting there. Equipment is loaded, trucks move, tanks roll, ships weigh anchor, planes take off, troops move out. Spouses, mothers, fathers, parents and children kiss each other goodbye, with the thought in their mind that they might never see each other again. Mobilization is an incredibly dangerous stage. A military unit is one of the most dangerous environments on earth -- more toxic, and more accident-prone, than an open-hearth steel factory. Body-crunching accidents can, and do, happen. The Pentagon factors in scores, if not hundreds, of troops to die in ordinary accidents during a huge military deployment. More American troops died from traffic accidents in Operation Desert Storm than in the assaults on Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. Critics are already knocking Clinton for playing "Wag the Dog," attempting to divert attention from his impeachment woes. But they are wrong. Iraq is a dangerous regional power, with biological, chemical and perhaps even nuclear weapons, and a demonstrated disposition to use them. Minus his personal problems, Clinton's position in relation to Iraq today is more akin to Dwight Eisenhower's on the eve of D-Day in 1944, when rain squalls and high seas kept the troops bottled up and increasingly restive in England. It was now or never for Eisenhower the tactician then, and it is now or never for Clinton now. SALON \| Dec. 17, 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 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.