Attack on Iraq:
Analysis from TIME Pentagon correspondent Mark Thompson

Transcript from Dec. 16, 1998

Timehost: Welcome to our TIME chat! It finally happened. After months of sword-rattling, President Clinton took the action that many thought he might never take...he ordered U.S. forces to bomb Iraq. Joining us this evening to discuss this momentous decision is TIME's Pentagon correspondent Mark Thompson. Welcome, Mark.

TIME's Mark Thompson: Good to be here.

Timehost: Can you give us a quick update on the situation?

Mark Thompson:The bombing has basically stopped for the night as dawn comes up over Iraq, and there is likely to be a lull for most of the day, as the Iraqis see what the U.S. has done to them, and we prepare to step up attacks for Thursday night.

Timehost: Any word on casualties or targets hit?

Mark Thompson: Basically, we know very little right now. Iraq is reporting that at least two civilians have been killed, and Iraqi officials have brought in western television crews to videotape civilians allegedly burned in some of the attacks. Based on people I am talking with at the Pentagon, it is safe to say that the first night's volley of attacks were directed largely, if not exclusively, at military targets: largely air-defense radars, SAM sites, and command and control nodes, along with attacks on targets directly linked to the production of weapons banned by the Gulf War cease-fire accord accords.

Timehost: OK, let's go to a question.

ChristianWarrior316 asks: Mr. Thompson, why did Clinton choose to do this now as the impeachment vote was near?

Mark Thompson: Christian, that's a very good question. An officer at the Pentagon tonight asked it like this: "This guy has been screwing around with us for seven years, and we have to attack him on the eve of the second presidential impeachment in the nation's history?" That's what this Army officer wondered aloud. Plainly, your position on the President, I think, will largely determine your stance on whether he acted properly tonight. The element of surprise was a key weapon in the Pentagon holster, but that has been true for seven years.

ShannyJP asks: Don't you think this is just a big "Wag the Dog"?

Mark Thompson: When the President spoke at the Pentagon last February, he gave a better and much harder-hitting speech than he did tonight, in my opinion. But the words in both sets of remarks were largely the same. Yet we did not attack last February, nor did we attack just last month, when Saddam gave us reason to do so. A cynic would suggest that the looming vote on impeachment was the decisive factor in today's action. A skeptic, such as myself, would prefer to wait for more evidence: is this the beginning of a new, long-range strategy in dealing with Iraq? Or is it merely a diversion? The coming weeks and months will give us the answer to that question.

Timehost: What do you think the chances are the Republicans will try to add abuse of power -- related to today's action -- to the list of charges against the President?

Mark Thompson: I do not think that will happen. Number one, any politicization of military action is extraordinarily dangerous to the good people who wear this nation's military uniforms. The nation basically seems fed up with the four current articles of impeachment already on the congressional platter, and I don't think the GOP is going to want to put another article on that plate.

rastaman_E asks: Do you think Saddam was somehow countin' on the impeachment process to keep American forces off his back?

Mark Thompson: That's a good question. While White House officials continue to insist that President Clinton can compartmentalize his job, dealing with impeachment in one compartment while dealing with Iraq in another, it's a safe bet that Saddam Hussein does not have that skill. Or perhaps, it is better to say that Saddam wants to see these two things merged together, and thinks he can exploit impeachment to serve his own ends. That will only happen if the flickers of GOP outrage that we witnessed tonight grow into a bonfire or conflagration tomorrow.

abraham_007 asks: Do you think that Saddam will use chemical or biological weapons to retaliate?

Mark Thompson: No I do not, for the same reason that he did not use them against troops in the Gulf War. At this point in time, the U.S.-led campaign appears aimed at smashing as much of Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, as possible and the long-range missiles that might be used to deliver them. It does not at this juncture appear to be a wholesale attack on the levers of power --- such as the special Republican guards that allow Saddam to retain a tight grip on power. The betting inside the Pentagon is that Saddam would not lash out with such weapons of mass destruction unless he felt that he or his regime were directly threatened by the US attacks.

LlNK19 asks: Is there any chance that Iraq might send an attack to North America?

Mark Thompson: The prospect of terrorism sponsored by Iraq or its allies remains a real concern. Unfortunately, the better the U.S. military is, the more its foes must rely on so-called "asymmetrical" means to attack American targets. US forces and installations in the Gulf region were only yesterday ratcheted up to threat condition Charlie -- the highest level of alert short of an actual attack -- out of concerns that a terrorist strike against U.S. interests in the region, is imminent. While terrorists would have a more difficult time striking against targets in North America, as we know only too well from the World Trade Center bombing and the attack in Oklahoma City, such actions are indeed possible.

WeR_atWar asks: Why are we with only England??? Where are our allies???

absntmindedprof asks: Does anyone realize that the attack on Iraq was decided by two countries, and the rest of the world learned about it in the news? What kind of United Nations action is this that it requires the consent of only two governments?

Mark Thompson: Well, frankly, this was not a United Nations action, even though it was done under the UN umbrella. Both Washington and London have maintained that existing UN resolutions already approved by the Security Council give them the authority to carry out today's strikes. But many other entities -- ranging from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to permanent Security Council members, China, France and Russia, disagree. A key thing to watch in the coming days will be whether or not the already shaky UN unanimity regarding Saddam is shaken or shattered by the latest military action.

CAUTION_extreme_hotness asks: Has there been any reaction from the Middle East?

Mark Thompson: I have not yet heard of any reaction pegged to today's events, although several days ago the Gulf Cooperation Council basically endorsed the prospect of the use of force to bring Saddam into compliance. This was important because in the November showdown the US and Britain won support from eight Arab states, which Washington deems critical to maintaining any sort of a united front against Iraq.

Mudcat72 asks: Today there was talk by Al Gore of overthrowing Hussein and a new government taking over. Is this the current strategy behind today's assault?

Mark Thompson: Another good question. The US has tried, with poor results, to overthrow Saddam by funding various opposition efforts since the end of the Gulf War (remember he was our ally during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war). Congress recently passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which calls on the President to spend up to $97 million on equipping and training forces opposed to Saddam. There is great skepticism whether such a scheme has any real chance of success. President Clinton said tonight that any such effort must be both "prudent and effective," and there are grave doubts inside the US military that any such efforts can be both at the same time.

Timehost: I'm afraid that's all the time Mark has for questions tonight. But thank you very much for joining us, Mark, and we hope to have you back here sometime!