"Right Decision - Wrong Reasons" column, 1996?

NEWS FROM Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. Second Congressional District of Maryland 1 407 York Road, Suite 304 315 Cannon House Office Building Lutherville, Maryland 21093 Washington, D.C. 20515 RIGHT DECISION - WRONG REASONS The President’s decision to launch a military strike against Iraq on September 3rd (and again on September 4th) may have been the right decision although evidence suggests it may have been made for the wrong reasons, and included targets in the wrong location. Saddam Hussein’s latest transgressions against the repressed Kurds in northern Iraq required a response. The U.S. and the west remain committed to protecting Kurdish leaders and its civilian population from unjustified and indiscriminate Iraqi killings. However, U.S. national interests and the Kurdish people would have been better served if there was broad international support for a response to Iraqi military activities. I believe the Clinton Administration could have accomplished far more good, in both the short term and the long run, regarding America’s Southwest Asia policy if the U.S. had brought together a broad range of international support for our unilateral action against Iraq. As the most political president of the modem era, Clinton unquestionably weighed the domestic political pay-off for acting “presidential.” According to French officials, in a telephone call made to French President Chirac prior to the military action, Clinton cited political pressures as a factor in his decision to launch the strikes. Recognizing Clinton’s political motives, Chirac reportedly attempted to dissuade Clinton from the attacks. Moreover, the launching of a second salvo of cruise missiles — while riding the crest of popular public opinion polls and enduring the criticism of coalition allies - may ultimately damage U.S. and Western interests in the region. While former President George Bush crafted a solid, international alliance of supporters of sanctions against Iraq, this Administration has allowed the alliance to falter to the point that some nations are pressing their case to cease Western efforts against Hussein. For example, France and Russia have been distancing themselves from continuing sanctions and the Turkish government has renewed approval of U.S. use of Turkey’s military bases by the slimmest of margins. Further, Spain and France criticized the strikes, Russia denounced the mission, Saudi Arabia declined use of Saudi-based AW ACS air control planes and refueling tankers, and Turkey prohibited the U.S. from using the American air base at Incirlik. Even pro-Westem Arab states, such as Egypt, which had supported the U.S.-led coalition against Iraq in 1991, have expressed doubts over the President’s decision, noting that Iraq acted within its own borders and at the invitation of one of the two main Kurdish factions. This lack of international solidarity is not only unsettling, but may also be a harbinger of larger problems looming on the horizon, i.e., Paris’s refusal to enforce Clinton’s unilaterally-declared, newly-expanded no-fly zone. As one of the three countries flying enforcement operations over southern Iraq, France’s decision will ultimately increase the burden on the U.S. and Britain and may lead to a disintegration of the