Few tyrants have ever more thoroughly devastated the quality of life
for their own subjects or more aggressively attacked their neighbors
than Hussein. He is a criminal, an easy man to hate.

    This being true, it still must be asked what we hope to accomplish
by air attacks on Iraq? Depose Hussein? Not a chance? The history of
aerial bombardment confirms that it unifies a society and solidifies the
political power of the leadership
.
    Will we end Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction?
Not a chance. Our intelligence is good but cannot possibly locate easily
concealed scientific and engineering facilities.

    President Bill Clinton only claims to be able to "delay and
degrade" Iraqi initiatives. In reality, the attacks are punitive
reprisals for Hussein's contemptuous defiance of U.S. demands and the
unavoidable consequences of repeated U.S. threats.

    President Clinton has been criticized for past pinprick attacks and
for canceling the planned November strikes altogether. Given his
vulnerable political circumstances, Clinton simply could not now
compromise American credibility abroad by failing to carry out U.S.
threats.

    The tragic irony is that the blows fall on the already victimized,
suffering people of Iraq   -  not on archvillain Hussein

    This raises a further question: What other costs may result from the
attacks?  The first obvious one is increased vulnerability of Americans
living in Muslim countries. These include not only our diplomatic and
military personnel but large numbers of civilian employees of U.S.
companies doing business abroad.

    Violence predictably begets violence even though it is directed
against innocents. There is certainly a risk that we will incur
significant political costs in our relations with Islamic nations as
well as with Russia and other major nations that resent yet another
unilateral action by the world's only superpower. We accord ourselves
the right to act militarily in our own interests, but many other nations
are growing uneasy about our unwillingness to do so without consultation
and consensus within the world community.

    As the world's foremost military power we have the ability to do
that today.

    But how long will Americans be willing and able to pay the steadily
growing military costs of maintaining our military dominance?

    This year the Pentagon will spend $280 billion and is already asking
for $300 billion or more next year to be ready to fight anywhere on the
globe.

    In short, the strikes are the inevitable consequence of America's
making its military power the primary instrument of its foreign policy.
In this instance, among others, military action cannot significantly
affect the situation in Iraq to our advantage. But it will generate real
political costs in both the short and the long term.

    Iraq is a clear signal that America must give serious attention to
devising a strategy that places less emphasis on punishing Washington's
adversaries and more on leading constructive efforts to resolve issues
peacefully as part of a cooperative world community.
 

Copyright 1998, Newsday Inc.