Showing Force

To a country in the middle of an ugly battle over his impeachment, President Clinton's missile attacks on Baghdad seemed almost surreal. But to the extent that we can separate the two political crises facing America this morning, it is clear that Clinton made the correct decision on Iraq.

One month ago, Clinton was within minutes of launching a similar attack when Saddam Hussein vowed full compliance with United Nations weapons inspectors. Clinton vowed it would be the last chance for Hussein to make such a promise. Now that the Iraqi leader has again failed to let the U.N. representatives do their work-as made clear in a report submitted Tuesday by Richard Butler, the chief U.N. weapons inspector-the time has passed for brokering with Iraq.

As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said yesterday, diplomatic channels have been tried and exhausted. It is time to send Hussein a message with force: Let us see that you are not building nuclear and chemical weapons, or, on behalf of world peace, we will see to it ourselves that you cannot do so.

Concerns have inevitably been raised about the timing of the operation, in light of the impeachment vote originally scheduled in the House for today. But the President made a strong case last night for the need to launch the attack before Hussein could prepare his defenses and before the Islamic holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. Moreover, the President's team of national security advisers unanimously supported the action, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair has mobilized mobilized British forces in the Gulf.

Still, other Republican leaders yesterday bluntly accused Clinton of risking American lives for his own political gain. We find this assertion both weak and offensive. It is weak because it has become clear that there are more than enough votes in the House to impeach Clinton. If anything, the intense skepticism regarding his motives will only harden sentiment against him in the G.O.P. It is offensive because despite the President's sexual immorality, we cannot seriously entertain the notion that Clinton would employ military action to save his skin.

Indeed, while questioning Clinton's intentions is natural, it was disturbing to see Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) say he could not support the President's decision, even as he knew military action was imminent. At this time of instability, when we lack some of the support we had seven years ago, our political leaders should stand united behind the military action.

The attack of Iraq only reminds us that the impeachment debate has wrongfully diverted the attention of lawmakers and citizens alike from matters of real partisan crusade to oust the President has divided and preoccupied the nation, warped our sense of proportion and left us vulnerable to foreign threats. It is now clearer than ever that Republican leaders, perhaps by following the plan for a joint censure resolution proposed by Bob Dole in Tuesday's New York Times, must commit to clearing the Lewinsky matter off the decks by the start of the new year.

As we argued here one month ago, it is high time that Saddam Hussein be forced out as leader of Iraq. Hussein has been a menace to his own people and to peace-loving people across the globe long enough; sooner rather than later he must be deposed in favor of a government committed to peace and stability in the Middle East. In this light, the most troubling question we have is whether Operation Desert Fox, planned to last just four days, will have a great enough impact on Iraq's capacity for harm. We hope President Clinton has a strategy for dealing with Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi threat that extends beyond the next three days.