Editorials
Wednesday, September 11, 1996
A humiliating defeat
for Clinton in Iraq
WHAT appeared to be an easy and cheap victory for President Clinton over Saddam Hussein has turned into a disaster. When Saddam sent his forces into the U.S.-protected Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq, the United States responded by firing cruise missiles at anti-aircraft facilities in southern Iraq and enlarging the no-fly zone. This was followed by reports that the Iraqi forces were pulling back, apparently reacting to the U.S. air strikes.
But now Saddam's Kurdish allies, with Iraqi support, have seized the city of Sulaymaniyah, the last stronghold of the opposition to Saddam, sending tens of thousands of residents fleeing. Reports from the region said that while Iraqi armor and artillery weren't doing the front-line fighting, they were providing crucial backup to the guerrillas of their Kurdish allies, the Kurdistan Democratic Party. The Kurdish region now seems to be under Saddam's control.
Evidently Saddam learned the wrong lesson from last week's U.S. missile strikes. Rather than deterring him, the attacks showed him the United States was unwilling to take sufficiently strong action to make a difference. The failure of the Clinton administration to muster support from the other members of the coalition that defeated Saddam in Operation Desert Storm was a further humiliation.
Clinton hoped to force Saddam to retreat without incurring U.S. casualties. In the midst of his campaign for re-election, the president was trying to get off cheaply in punishing the Iraqi dictator. But it hasn't worked. Instead it has revealed the disintegration of the Desert Storm coalition and unwillingness of the Clinton administration to live up to its commitments. It is also a betrayal of the Kurds who plotted with American encouragement to overthrow Saddam.
This is a foreign policy setback comparable to the humiliating pullout from Somalia, but with much broader implications. It can only encourage Saddam to engage in further adventures. Foreign affairs have not figured in the election campaign thus far, but Clinton should be held to account for this fiasco.
Three strikes
CALIFORNIA'S "three strikes and you're out" sentencing requirement might have been good politics, but a new study shows it made bad law. The effect of the threat of mandatory 25-years-to-life imprisonment after a third felony conviction has been questionable, and its secondary consequences have been disastrous. Fortunately, the law was scaled back three months ago by the California Supreme Court. By restoring judicial discretion, the justices returned common sense to the courtroom.
Nuclear weapons
DESPITE opposition by India, the United Nations General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly to endorse a treaty to ban all nuclear test explosions. The vote was 158 in favor, with three - India, Libya and Bhutan - opposed and five abstaining. It was a striking illustration of India's decline from its former position as a leader of the Third World bloc.
India's real motive appeared to be to leave its own nuclear option open. Fortunately, almost all the U.N. member nations disagreed and supported the test ban.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor