[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 17, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     POLITICAL TARGETS EASIEST ONES TO SPOT IN IRAQ MISSILE BARRAGE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 17, 1996

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the 
editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on September 11, 
1966:

             [From the Omaha World-Herald, Sept. 11, 1996]

     Political Targets Easiest Ones to Spot in Iraq Missile Barrage

       The Butcher of Baghdad, The Bully of Baghdad. ``Saddamed if 
     you do, Saddammed if you don't.''
       Guess who's back in the headlines? Saddam Hussein. Again. 
     The news types have dusted off the old cliches and come up 
     with a few new ones to catalog his latest military 
     indiscretions.
       Six years after he invaded Kuwait, six years after his 
     forces were pummeled unmercifully in what he described as 
     ``The Mother of All Battles,'' the Iraqi president has again 
     put his meager military strength at risk. This time he chose 
     sides among rival Kurdish factions and sent 40,000 troops in 
     to assure a victory for his favorite in northern Iraq.
       This time, as last time, the president of the United States 
     has cited our vital interest in peace and order in the oil-
     rich Middle East and ordered a military response. And its the 
     sort of no-strings response that leaves voters looking ahead 
     to Election Day with the maximum comfort level.
       Missiles from afar. No ground troops. Virtually no risk of 
     American casualties. Little notice taken and little need to 
     comment on Iraqi casualties, military or civilian. Plenty of 
     room for the Pentagon to claim bull's-eyes for the finest in 
     American technology.
       In the sort of analogy that Nebraskans always appreciate, 
     the Tomahawk cruise missile is described as being so accurate 
     that it can be fired from New York or Chicago and whiz right 
     through a set of goal posts in Washington, D.C.
       Goal posts, touchdowns and extra points are also inviting 
     terms for describing a political victory for the Clinton 
     camp. In danger of being pegged, again, as a foreign policy 
     lightweight by Bob Dole, of being called soft on Iraq, the 
     president has yielded to aggressive temptation.
       When George Bush presided over victory in the 1990 Gulf 
     War, his approval rating soared to 89 percent. Unfortunately 
     for Bush, it was not time for an election.
       President Clinton, who knows approval ratings like a sports 
     bookie knows the box scores, scored 69 percent in an early 
     Time Magazine/CNN poll after pulling the military trigger. 
     Hey, it's early yet.
       But what makes so much sense politically makes little sense 
     strategically or in support of sound foreign policy. It's 
     swatting a fly with a sledgehammer.
       This time, putting the best face on it, it's an exclusively 
     American message to a meddler to mind his own business.
       But this time, unlike last time, the United States has no 
     support among Iraq's neighbors, no support from the United 
     Nations, and, with the exception of the British, no support 
     from our traditional allies. There is no coalition of 32 
     countries joining in defense of an invaded country.
       This time, unlike last time, Saddam is operating within his 
     own borders and intervening in a dispute between Kurdish 
     elements sympathetic to either Iran or Iraq.
       This time, the United States has stepped beyond economic 
     sanctions and pushed the launch buttons for nothing more 
     serious than violating a no-fly zone in Saddam's own 
     country--even though the Iraqi leader used ground troops and 
     no airplanes.
       This time, the likely effect is to polish his image as 
     somebody who stands up to the American aggressors and to 
     tarnish our image for intervening militarily in regional 
     disputes in which we have only the most marginal stake.
       This time, critics of presidential policy can speak their 
     minds without having to worry about undermining ``our 
     troops.'' This time, there are no troops. There are only 
     anonymous warheads from afar and a chance to practice our 
     marksmanship.
       Since their significance is almost completely symbolic, we 
     could just as well have fired the missiles minus the 
     warheads. We could have substituted leaflets and campaign 
     signs that state matters plainly. ``Clinton in '96.''

                          ____________________