ad info

CNN.com
 MAIN PAGE
 WORLD
 ASIANOW
 U.S.
 U.S. LOCAL
 ALLPOLITICS
  TIME
  analysis
  community
 WEATHER
 BUSINESS
 SPORTS
 TECHNOLOGY
 NATURE
 ENTERTAINMENT
 BOOKS
 TRAVEL
 FOOD
 HEALTH
 STYLE
 IN-DEPTH

 custom news
 Headline News brief
 daily almanac
 CNN networks
 on-air transcripts
 news quiz

 CNN WEB SITES:
CNN Websites
 TIME INC. SITES:
 MORE SERVICES:
 video on demand
 video archive
 audio on demand
 news email services
 free email accounts
 desktop headlines
 pointcast
 pagenet

 DISCUSSION:
 message boards
 chat
 feedback

 SITE GUIDES:
 help
 contents
 search

 FASTER ACCESS:
 europe
 japan

 WEB SERVICES:
 TIME on politics Congressional Quarterly CNN/AllPolitics CNN/AllPolitics - Storypage, with TIME and Congressional Quarterly

The politics of bombing

By Bill Schneider/CNN

March 24, 1999
Web posted at: 3:04 p.m. EST (2004 GMT)

WASHINGTON (March 23) -- There is a rule abut U.S military intervention aboard: Drop bombs, don't send troops. The reason isn't so much military. It is mostly political.

Bombing seems safer, at least for Americans -- especially smart bombs that can blow up carefully selected military targets while minimizing civilian casualties. Bombs that can go right down Saddam Hussein's chimney.

Or Osama bin Laden's.

"Today I ordered our armed forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan," President Bill Clinton said August 20, 1998.

Air strikes are not without risk, of course. American planes can get shot down. Remember Scott O'Grady, the heroic air force pilot who got shot down over Bosnia?

Clinton has warned Americans of those risks in Kosovo.

"U.S. and other NATO pilots will be in harm's way. The Serbs have a strong air defense system," Clinton said Friday during a news conference.

The problem with air strikes is that they don't usually accomplish much.

Adolf Hitler couldn't bomb Britain into submission. Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon tried for years, without success, to bomb the North Vietnamese to the peace table. Bombing isn't what got Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991. We had to send in ground troops.

Ground troops not only increase the risk of U.S. casualties. They also increase the risk that the U.S. will get involved in another country's politics. That's what happened to us in Vietnam. And in Lebanon.

"There are no words to properly express our outrage. And I think the outrage of all Americans at this despicable act," President Ronald Reagan said on October 23, 1983 after a suicide bomber killed 241 Marines and sailors at the Marine headquarters in Beirut. The servicemen were part of a multinational peacekeeping force.

And in Somalia.

"This past weekend we all reacted with anger and horror as an armed Somali gang desecrated the bodies of our American soldiers and displayed a captured American pilot," Clinton told Americans in an Oval Office address on October 8, 1993.

So a president sends ground troops into Iraq with a promise.

"This will not be another Vietnam," President George Bush said on January 16, 1991, a day before the air war against Iraq began.

We can win and get out.

"When the troops we've sent in finish their work, I'm determined to bring them home as soon as possible," Bush continued.

Even if, in the view of most Americans, we didn't quite finish the job.

Clinton sent ground troops into Haiti in 1994 with a promise: "The United States cannot --indeed, we should not--be the world's policeman."

So first, we get the Haitian generals to agree to a peace deal. Then we send the troops in to enforce it. And get out.

"When this first phase is completed, the vast majority of our troops will come home -- in months, not years," Clinton explained at the beginning of the operation.

Even if it's not clear we accomplished very much in Haiti.

The president sent ground troops into Bosnia only after there's a peace agreement. Now we're getting out. Although it's not clear what will happen when all the American troops are gone.

Our troops don't wage war. They wage peace. Americans are now split over whether the U.S. should participate in air strikes in Kosovo.

But if a peace agreement is reached in Kosovo, should the U.S. commit its troops as part of a NATO peacekeeping effort? Fine.

A peace agreement makes it easier to send troops in. But harder to get them out. Because the peace may last only as long as the U.S. troops are there.


RELATED STORIES

Senate tables Kosovo resolution authorizing 'all necessary force' (5-4-99)

Senate likely to table Kosovo resolution (5-3-99)

Poll: Congress should have authority over U.S. involvement in Kosovo (5-3-99)

Jackson revels in winning release of captive GIs (5-3-99)

Seventeen congressmen file suit against Clinton to end war (4-30-99)


ROLL CALL

Senate roll call tabling Kosovo resolution


TRANSCRIPTS

President Bill Clinton speaks on Kosovo (4-28-99)


VIDEO

John King reports: Clinton says Yugoslav initiatives fall short, but still hoping for diplomatic breakthrough (5-4-99) video Windows Media: 28K | 80K

Candy Crowley reports: War widening bill debated in Congress (5-4-99) video Windows Media: 28K | 80K


INTERACTIVE

Presidential hopefuls stake out positions on NATO airstrikes


TIME THIS WEEK

Jesse Jackson's trip to Belgrade produces a dramatic announcement. Will it help or undermine the allied campaign?


CNN IN-DEPTH:

Strike on Yugoslavia

The Conflict:

  • From TIME: The Kosovo Catastrophe: In Pictures
  • Kosovo Primer

    Message Board:

  • Your thoughts...



  • MORE STORIES:

    Wednesday, March 24, 1999

    Search CNN/AllPolitics
              Enter keyword(s)       go    help


    © 1999 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    Terms under which this service is provided to you.
    Read our privacy guidelines.
    Who we are.