U.S. Strikes Aimed at Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON -- President Clinton ordered a "strong and sustained"
air attack on Iraq Dec. 16 in response to continued Iraqi
attempts to build weapons of mass destruction.
Tomahawk cruise missiles streaked toward Baghdad at 5 p.m. EST
to start Operation Desert Fox. Defense Secretary William S.
Cohen said U.S. goals are to "degrade" Iraq's military
capability, to stop Saddam Hussein from threatening his
neighbors, to strike at facilities engaged in making weapons of
mass destruction and to deprive Hussein of the means of
delivering those weapons.
British airmen also joined in the strikes.
Cohen said he had ordered an air expeditionary wing and more
ground troops to the Persian Gulf region as a precaution.
Pentagon officials said the deployment order has been signed and
about 90 Air Force and Marine Corps aircraft will soon be
operating in the region. Deploying Army units include a brigade
from Fort Stewart, Ga.; Army Patriot missile batteries from Fort
Bliss, Texas, and Fort Bragg, N.C.; and a light infantry
battalion from Fort Drum, N.Y.
The new U.S. forces will join 24,100 other service members
already stationed in the region. There are 201 U.S. aircraft in
the area, including 15 B-52H bombers based at Diego Garcia, in
the Indian Ocean. The aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson and its
battle group are scheduled to arrive in the Gulf Dec. 18.
Pentagon officials said eight Navy ships started the strikes by
launching Tomahawk missiles. Army Gen. Henry Shelton, chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said strikes will be flown by the
U.S. Air Force and Royal Air Force pilots flying from bases in
the area and naval aviators from the USS Enterprise.
Cohen said the president agreed with advisers: "We wanted to
strike quickly with no more warning, no more carrots for Saddam
and no chance to prepare for the attacks."
The attacks followed a Dec. 15 report by chief U.N. arms
inspector Richard Butler that said Iraq's compliance with U.N.
resolutions had worsened since the U.N.-Iraqi confrontation in
November. U.S. planes had been in the air to strike Iraq Nov. 14
when Saddam agreed to abide completely by U.N. resolutions.
Shelton said planning for another U.S. attack started Nov. 15.
"We assumed a worst-case scenario [about compliance]," he said.
He said the timing of the attack had to wait on Butler's report.
"Frankly, we thought the report would be mixed," Cohen said.
"But in all five areas covered, Iraq had gotten worse."
Cohen and Shelton were not specific about the attack. Shelton
said strikes generally would hit transport, air defense sites,
and command and control facilities. "We're going after
everything [involved with weapons of mass destruction] from
transport to manufacturing to delivery," Shelton said.
He said U.S. forces will do all they can to avoid civilian
casualties, but said there will be some.
Pentagon officials estimate the Iraqis have 430,000 active duty
troops and 650,000 in reserve. About 17,000 Iraqi soldiers are
involved with air defense and the Iraqi air force still has
about 310 planes.
WASHINGTON -- A month ago, the United States called off its war
planes to give Saddam Hussein one last chance to cooperate. When
he failed to do so, the United States took action.
President Clinton ordered air strikes Dec. 16 against Iraq's
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its
military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Warships and combat
aircraft began bombarding the defiant Gulf state at 5 p.m. EST -
- 1 a.m. in Baghdad, the Iraqi capital.
"The international community gave Saddam one last chance to
resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors," Clinton said.
"Saddam has failed to seize the chance. So we had to act and act
now."
Less than an hour after American and British forces launched
Operation Desert Fox, the president addressed the nation to
explain his decision. He said the attack was designed to protect
the national interests of the United States and the interests of
people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or
the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,"
Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against
his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
The strikes culminated the second showdown with Iraq in the past
month. Clinton turned back U.S. warplanes bound for Iraq Nov. 14
when Hussein backed down in the face of intense diplomatic
pressure backed by overwhelming military force. At the time, the
Iraqi leader agreed to cooperate unconditionally with the U.N.
Special Commission.
"I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use
restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his
willingness to cooperate," the president said. The confrontation
wasn't over, but simply on hold -- Clinton said at the time that
the United States would be prepared to act "without delay,
diplomacy or warning" if Saddam failed again.
Over the next three weeks, U.N. weapons inspectors tested Iraq's
willingness to cooperate. UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler
reported Dec. 15 to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Butler's conclusions, Clinton said, proved to be "stark,
sobering and profoundly disturbing." Instead of living up to its
agreement, he said, "Iraq has abused its final chance."
He said Iraq had placed new restrictions on the inspectors,
further obstructed inspections and failed to turn over all
requested documents. In one instance, the Iraqis removed all
documents, furniture and equipment from a building prior to a
U.N. inspection.
Butler's report concluded Iraq has ensured U.N. inspectors could
make no progress toward disarmament. Even if the inspectors
could stay in Iraq, Clinton said, their work would be a sham.
"Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness," he said.
"Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, the Iraqi dictator
has disarmed the inspectors."
Clinton said he and his national security advisers agreed that
Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the stability of
the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. He said he
deemed military action necessary to prove the international
community, led by the United States, had not lost its will.
Failure to act, Clinton said, would have "fatally undercut the
fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination
in the region."
In a Pentagon briefing immediately following the president's
address to the nation, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and
Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
briefed reporters.
Cohen said he was ordering a sharp increase in U.S. Gulf forces
to limit the risk to U.S. and allied troops. Deploying forces
include an air expeditionary wing with about 36 combat aircraft
and the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson battle group, to join
the 201 planes and USS Enterprise battle group already in the
region.
Shelton noted that deploying more elements of the crisis
response force would add flexibility and allow military leaders
to increase the intensity and tempo of strike operations if
necessary.
The chairman also recognized those called upon to enforce the
national defense leaders' decisions -- America's men and women
in uniform. "We can be particularly proud tonight of those that
are answering the call in the skies over Iraq and the Persian
Gulf," he said.
posted on February 4, 2004 07:56:50 AM new
All anyone has to do is pull up the transcript of clinton's own dec. 16th 1998 speech. A speech he gave to our nation, as he ordered bombs to be dropped on Iraq, to know he too, thought Saddam had womd. Anyone call pull up transcripts from M. Albright to see her own words on Iraq, womd and the threat Saddam posed too. It's the same, over and over, with all of those in the clinton administration. They can read Sandy [Samuel] Berger's statements in the days following those bombs being dropped. They all agreed. Bush's intelligence information was no different from clintons. He didn't lie to anyone, anymore than clinton lied to us on this issue.
It's just that those who can't see both presidents thought Saddam had womd.....can't accept the truth and use this for partisan advantage. They're the one's who are willing to compromise our nations security for there own partisan beliefs. Sad....sad....sad.
But most American's are aware of the facts and aren't buying into this 'Bush lied' garbage.
posted on February 4, 2004 08:09:30 AM new"He could have been forthcoming and made these statements to our press where the matter could have been settled once and for all. Politics and his party accusing Bush of lying have been going on for THREE YEARS. He could have made a difference....he chose not to. Slime......"
"This disgusts me to no end. WHAT A SLIME BALL clinton IS. I have repeatedly defended this president on this subject. I have posted multiple articles, that contained clinton's own words about Saddam, Iraq and WOMD. But many argued that was OLD info. Bush was lying to us."
You never cease to amaze, Linda. In one post with bolded rage, you call Clinton a slimeball and in another you promote his opinion about WMD as right on.
Don't you wish that he was president again.
Actually, we have been over this before. Clinton said that he did not know. On the other hand, BUSH said that he had proof...EVIDENCE with no doubt.
posted on February 4, 2004 08:14:30 AM new
Clinton is not the president now, and did not start a preemptive war costing thousands of lives based on faulty intelligence. That's your guy.
But one could argue what is a WOMD? The means to commit murder on a vast scale? Rwanda used machetes, and killed far more humans than the Sarin attack in the tokyo subway. The will to murder humans on a vast number is the prime factor. The prime factor sits in the White House right now.
You see, Bush is a WOMD.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on February 4, 2004 09:18:47 AM new
Yep, snowy, that's MY guy. A man with guts....unlike clinton who refused to take BinLaden when he was offered on a silver platter. clinton, who during his administration it was noted the terrorists just might use planes to attack us...and did nothing. Clinton who said saddam needed to be removed from power...and MY guy did it.
I'm proud of the actions this President has taken. It shows the world we aren't some patsy that's going to continue to have the terrorist make attacks against our national interests and do nothing about it.....as your clinton did. The world IS taking note....and binladen knows we aren't the 'paper tigers' he called us during the clinton administration.
That's my guy alright. And these actions alone will get him re-elected.
posted on February 4, 2004 10:02:07 AM new
Wrong again linda.
Gut reaction is becoming increasingly unpopular among Americans --especially among those Americans who have friends and family members killed in Bush's gut reaction.
Gut reaction without plan and thought is NOT a favorable characteristic of someone who should be the leader of our country. Right now, we are in a war and suddenly discover that hey! we have no exit plan. We have no soldiers and personnel here trained to handle the aftermath of destruction. Oh, gee...what do we do. Now, the gut reactor is again trying to avoid responsibility for an action that with though and consideration could have been avoided. Over 527 American soldiers would be alive today if we did not have a gut reactor for a president.
posted on February 4, 2004 10:20:16 AM new
::clinton, who during his administration it was noted the terrorists just might use planes to attack us...and did nothing::
What kind of ridiculous statement is this? Anyone who has ever read a Tom Clancy book knew this was a posibility. What did Bush do? Did the FBI and CIA hide that piece of info from him? You can blame Clinton all you would like for 9/11 Linda but "your guy" was in office for 9 months and had not done a damn thing about it either.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 4, 2004 10:25:34 AM new
I hope Bush tries to run against Clinton. It will make Bush's loss that much bigger and may even bring more Dems into Congress.
Bush lied about Iraq. He has wrecked the economy. Squandered a budget surplus into huge deficits. Refuses to protect our borders.
posted on February 4, 2004 11:58:48 AM new
I am absolutely positive that Bill Clinton believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because the previous administration told him so. You know, Bush 1.
I mean isn't Clintons believing it why Bush2 believed it? Isn't every darn thing the previous admins fault?
Linda, do you really believe that if Clinton had gone into Iraq and taken out Sadam like Bush has done that those men would not have flown those planes into the towers?Do you believe that if he had taken Bin Laden when offered on a platter that nothing would have happened? Do you not remember that he did get the people behind the first bombing of the towers and they were not Bin Laden?
You must have access to all the administrations papers, you know so much about all this.
All religions are equally right
[ edited by rawbunzel on Feb 4, 2004 12:07 PM ]
posted on February 4, 2004 12:07:38 PM new
You guys all buy the idea your man has to be right and everyone else is a devil.
You fall right into the trap believing there is any essential difference between them.
It's just a good natured contest to see who has a turn at looting your pocket.
Good natured as long as they keep changing administrations without tanks on the street.
That could end if one side feels the other was cheating too boldly.
posted on February 4, 2004 12:14:05 PM new
Gravid, I am well aware that they are all devils. I detest politicians but politicians are all we seem to get to vote for .I wish it weren't so.
posted on February 10, 2004 09:45:09 PM new
How do you prove that you do not have something. Saddam could not prove that his nuclear materials had been destroyed because from the mouths of his own scientists, it did not exist. They had lied to him to save their own lives and were then able to use both the 91 war and the Clinton bombings to cover their lie by telling him that everything was destroyed in the bombings.
At the time of the Clinton campaign the US was under the same mistaken assumption that Saddam himself was under.
The problem is that the the Bush administration KNEW it existed and KNEW where it was, refused to give that information to UN inspectors and used this knowledge which the CIA said was highly exaggerated to justify another war.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 10, 2004 09:50:55 PM new
EAG, you're ill-informed. Several years' worth of U.N. inspections PROVED, on paper, that Saddam had no WMD, nor any facilities capable of manufacturing nuclear weapons. We ignored the U.N. reports (and our own Intelligence reports) because they negated the Bush Administration's reasons for invading Iraq ( "Saddam has WMD" ). We would've toppled Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter) even if the Taliban and Saddam had required every citizen of their nations to recite the pledge of allegiance to the American flag every day! Neither of these invasions has been about some hamhock apple-pie desire to bring democracy to these countries; heck, we funded both Saddam and the Taliban for years!
Get ahold of the latest geological survey maps of the Middle East -- the ones that note oil deposits; maybe then you'll begin to understand why these wars have been so crucial, and in future years you'll accept/approve even more readily our domination of the world...
posted on February 11, 2004 03:05:36 AM newI'm proud of the actions this President has taken. It shows the world we aren't some patsy that's going to continue to have the terrorist make attacks against our national interests and do nothing about it.....
Right on Linda!
We can only hope after he gets reelected he takes away from the UN, what a spinless and inept org that has turned out to be.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
heh, who really cares in a world were queers can be married...
posted on February 11, 2004 03:01:14 PM new
One thing about Clinton.....you could ALWAYS tell when he was lying.....His lips were moving...
Massachusetts is about to become the first state to allow gays and lesbians to marry. Now here's the part I don't understand -- why would a gay guy want to marry a lesbian? ....Jay Leno
