Desert Storm Warnings
USA
Today and the New York
Times lead with a federal judge's ruling that the line-item veto is
unconstitutional. The Washington Post leads with the Russian defense minister's
face-to-face rebuke of the U.S. Defense Secretary over Iraq. The top national
story at the Los Angeles Times is the unhappiness among many
congressional Republicans about Newt Gingrich's decision to handle the Lewinsky
scandal by saying nothing critical of President Clinton.
According to the WP lead, in their Moscow meeting, Igor Sergeyev
forcefully lectured William Cohen right in front of reporters about how America
was being too tough on Iraq, and warned that future U.S.-Russian relations may
be affected. The paper reports that Cohen kept his cool. Also, the Post
reports that Cohen asked Sergeyev about yesterday's allegations in the
WP about a 1995 agreement by Russia to sell Iraq equipment that could be
used to develop biological weapons. The Russians issued a carefully worded
denial.
The Post portrays the recent diplomacy undertaken by Russia in
connection with the Iraq flare-up as providing it with a chance to take on a
global role it hasn't had since the Soviet collapse. And indeed, Cohen left the
meeting with the latest Russian proposal for softening U.N. weapons inspections
of Iraq. Russian-U.S. tensions over Iraq also get front-page space at
USAT , the LAT and the WSJ .
The NYT describes the line-item veto veto as "a major blow" (random
choice of words?) to President Clinton and Republican congressional leaders.
The decision sets the stage, says the paper, for a ruling on the matter by the
Supreme Court.
The Times reports that although the LIV is often defended as a tool
for fiscal restraint, even the Clinton administration attributes to it only $1M
in direct deficit reduction.
The USAT front section "cover story" does a very able job of
covering the geopolitical and especially military nuances facing any U.S. move
against Iraq. The paper points out that, of course, this time there isn't
nearly the amount of international support for military action. And it's
suggested that the current goal of thwarting Saddam's ability to wage chemical
and biological warfare is far more nebulous than 1991's objective of throwing
Saddam out of Kuwait.
But on the other hand, says the paper, U.S. smart bombs have gotten
smarter--they're now less likely to be distracted by smoke or bad weather-- and
there will be a lot more of them now. And now almost every plane in the
gathering U.S. air arsenal can launch them.
This story has a surprising, even disconcerting amount of order of battle
information ("The six F-117 Stealth fighters stationed nearby in Kuwait.").
Also, the piece makes the point that still seven years after Desert Storm,
there is no ideal bomb in the inventory that can reliably destroy bio-chemical
weapons plants while keeping poisons from getting into the atmosphere, which
means that true precision will be needed to avoid large numbers of civilian
casualties. Another obstacle noted is that it is impossible to destroy all the
computer disks holding "cookbooks" for making chemical and biological
weapons.
A couple of questions about the story however: The paper says that the B-2
stealth bomber is a "stealth design like the F-117" stealth fighter, just much
bigger. But actually, the former employs smooth curves to bend radar waves
while the latter uses flat, jagged edges to scatter them. And USAT says
that the only U.S. jet capable of dropping a 5,000 lb. "bunker-busting bomb" is
missing from the roster being formed over there. But doesn't explain why. The
NYT front-page piece, by ex-Marine Gen. Bernard Trainor, on the U.S.
military plan, says that the 5,000 pounders will be used.
According to the Wall Street Journal "Washington Wire," Clinton advisor
Bruce Lindsey had a phone conversation last summer with.Linda Tripp. His
purpose: to find out more about Kathleen Willey's allegations of sexual
harassment by Clinton.
"Today's Papers" appreciates all its sharp-eyed grammarian readers and will
press on irregardless of its occasional missteps.
The NYT features a sprawling op-ed by Tom Clancy called "Know the Answers Before
Going to War." In it, Clancy states that we don't seem to have the answers to
very many of the questions relevant to attacking Iraq's chemical and biological
warfare capabilities. This is interesting, because in Clancy's novels the U.S.
invariably has all the answers, and its weapons perform as required. So maybe
the questions he proliferates here (here, unlike in his books, he questions the
notion of a "surgical" strike, and here he wonders, "Who has told us that it is
OK to kill women and children?") are signs of a long-deferred maturity. But
more likely is that this is anti-Clinton blather from a conservative
Republican. After all, in this piece the car-home-and-fire salesman turned
global strategist describes the Gulf War as if it were a model of Clausewitzian
clarity concerning ultimate goals and acceptable means, forgetting in the
process that at the end of that war, the Bush/Powell/Schwarzkopf axis
internally disagreed about war issues that had never been articulated for the
American people: Should the U.S. destroy the Iraqi military, invade Baghdad, or
topple Hussein even after Iraq was repulsed from Kuwait? Because of that
history, the American people have now given such matters much more thought.
