ALTHOUGH most analysts and commentators agree that President Clinton's decision to launch US cruise missiles against Iraq had more to do with getting re-elected than with the Kurds, there has been little domestic dissent or wholesale condemnation.
Republican nominee Bob Dole, who had earlier chastised Clinton for his "photo-op foreign policy" and "weak leadership," did a turnaround the moment the missiles began to fly and said it was inappropriate to be critical when US servicemen were at risk. Ross Perot, who berated the president for his adventurism, is the only exception.바카라 웹사이트
"It's a gamble the president makes and it may pay off or it may not," said American University academic Delroy Andrews. "Dole and his foreign affairs adviser Senator John McCain have been egging the White House on for not taking military action and have suggested that Clinton was soft on Iraq. Not taking action might have cost Clinton the election. President Bush had shot up in the (1992 pre-election) polls to an all-time high immediately after the Gulf War but his numbers dwindled along with the economy. Voters have short memories. In this instance, Clinton won't give them a chance to forget. For him, the timing is brilliant."바카라 웹사이트
There were mixed reactions from the American public. Many want Saddam Hussein eliminated but AFP don't want to go to war to accomplish this. In fact, public opinion is as varied as knowledge about why the US made the attack. Most people know little about Kurds and no-fly zones. Those who remember the Persian Gulf war are concerned about losing more American lives. Some worry the attack will cause oil prices to shoot up. Many raise questions about the timing—just two months before the elections.
"Clinton is doing everything to gain votes. He will do what it takes to remain in the White House, even if it means going to war against another country," said Elviro Rodriguez, a student from Colombia. "It's atrocious that the president would kill and maim innocent adults and children for the sole purpose of rising up in the polls," said Bilqis Jarad, an Arab-American researcher. "Why didn't the US intervene when Israel bombed Lebanon in May?"바카라 웹사이트
Geoffrey Kemp, national security aide to President Reagan, who is now with the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom, called the lack of international backing for the US missile attacks "highly exaggerated...our Arab friends have always reacted this way. There's nothing new about this. Jordan and Egypt, which have been publicly cool to the attacks on Iraq in the past, would say 'deal with these thugs and do it immediately. But don't tell us about it.' I think it's perfectly clear a deal was struck with Saudi Arabia, because there's no way we could implement and monitor a no-fly zone without Saudi compliance."바카라 웹사이트
But as a western diplomat said: "With the exception of Japan, Britain and Germany, the world at large is withholding support for the US action. Even friends of the US are in a quandary as to whether Washington's decision is self-serving or not. Though Clinton's missile strike may help his re-election, friction of this nature with Iraq will not serve Washington's long-term interests."
