We Bombed in Baghdad
The coincidence of the
airstrikes on Iraq and the suspension of the impeachment proceedings
preoccupied most of the world's press Thursday, bringing further damage to Bill
Clinton's international standing. Arab newspapers were predictably critical of
the bombing raids. In one or two of them, U.N. Security Commission chief
Richard Butler, rather than Clinton, was seen as the villain of the piece. In
Bahrain, the daily Akhbar al-Khaleej wrote, for example: "A word from
the spy Butler could have saved the Iraqi people from American aggression. And
a word from him is sufficient justification for the American war planes and
missiles to be launched."
The pan-Arab paper
al-Quds al-Arabi published an article by its Palestinian editor,
Abdelbari Atwan, saying that "once again Clinton is using the Iraqi people as
scapegoats to extricate himself from his domestic crisis. ... What have the
Iraqi people done to the Americans and their President to deserve such disdain
and to be singled out for destruction, death, and extermination?"
In Jordan, the daily Ad-Dustour said the attacks would "only lead to more
devastation and pain to people who have suffered a lot as a result of unjust
sanctions." Al Rai said that "the real aim of this strike is to get rid
of Saddam Hussein and, in such a case, the real loser is international
legitimacy and law." The Jordan Times opined that America's "well-phrased and
logical" justifications of the attack had unfortunately been undermined by the
coincidences of the postponement of the House impeachment vote and of "the
remarkable window of opportunity that opened up right before Ramadan [the
Muslim fasting month]."
In Israel, Ron Ben-Ishai, the military analyst of
Yediot Aharanot , said Israeli defense officials had predicted a month
ago that the American air offensive would be launched now, in mid-December,
during the "narrow window" between Clinton's visit to the Middle East and the
start of Ramadan this weekend. "This consideration took precedence, apparently,
over Clinton's unwillingness to be portrayed as trying to divert American
public opinion from the impeachment process," Ben-Ishai wrote.
He added that the reason
Israel was so calm in advance of the attack was that it had concluded there
were no launchers or ballistic missiles to threaten it in western Iraq, and
that even if Saddam decided to launch the few "Hussein" missiles and improved
Scuds he still had, he would need more than 24 hours to transfer them from
their hiding places to an area within range of Israel. Within this time,
Israeli and American intelligence could detect the intention and prevent the
launchings, he said.
Israeli papers also devoted much space to their country's
political crisis and the likelihood of early Knesset elections. In Ha'aretz , Dan
Margalit wrote that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had made a major
political miscalculation at Wye, having made the Palestinian state an
established fact in the minds of the Israeli right--"certainly not the
achievement he planned to be remembered for."
In Britain, America's
partner in the attacks on Iraq, the conservative press was strongly supportive
of them. The Times said they were "a grim necessity" forced on the allies
by Saddam; while the Daily Telegraph , under the headline "See It Through," ran an
editorial urging them to extend the offensive into
Ramadan. "[T]o set such a tight limit on bombing will ensure that it is little
more than a pinprick," it said. "[I]t will not seriously dent Saddam's hold
over his country. For that, a prolonged air campaign is the bare minimum."
The liberal Guardian , however, said that the bombing would only be
justified if it led to the self-determination of the Iraqi people. The London
Evening Standard said that even those who wholeheartedly
supported the offensive were "deeply dismayed by the fact that it is President
Clinton who has made the decision, who has precipitated this grave step.
...This President's personal position is far too deeply compromised for the
world easily to accept at face value either his judgements or his reasons."
On the continent of Europe, there was harsh
condemnation of both the raids and Clinton's general conduct. In Paris, the
daily Libération called the pretext for the offensive "dramatically
thin" and linked it to the postponement of the impeachment process. The
conservative Le
Figaro supported France's policy of detachment not as appeasement but
rather as good sense. In Italy, Milan's Corriere della
Sera said it didn't believe that Clinton had attacked Iraq to gain time
on impeachment--it was the United States that wanted to retaliate before
returning to the issue of its president. It added: "To us impotent spectators,
there is left the sad privilege of realizing how weak in reality our principal
ally is, and how deeply shaken it is in its politico-institutional
mechanisms."
