The Aug. 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya stunned a world unused to the specter of worldwide attacks on such installations.
Two weeks later, President Bill Clinton dropped a bombshell of his own, ordering a round of cruise missile strikes against related targets. Coming as the first known retaliatory military strikes against terrorism since the 1986 bombing of Libya, the Aug. 20 strikes surprised nearly everyone outside of the few administration insiders.
As the smoke clears from the strikes on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, some observers are offering reserved support while others continue to challenge the timing of the counteroffensive.
"I was surprised by [the strikes] because they happened so quickly after the event. Usually, it takes much longer to make sure who was responsible and to consider all the options," said Peter Feaver, assistant professor of political science. Feaver, a former member of the National Security Council, added that the large scale of the attacks-unprecedented for the Clinton administration-was also surprising. "This was not a pin-prick response.... This represents quick action but not unjustifiably quick action."
Ole Holsti, George Allen professor emeritus of political science, downplayed the speed of the attacks. "It wasn't all that fast... that's not [a] kind of instant reaction. It seems to me that this was a fairly considered response."
Bruce Kuniholm, vice provost for Academic and International Affairs, and a professor of public policy and history with expertise in terrorism and Mideast relations was guarded in his support.
"It's very difficult to pass a judgment without all the information available to make the decision," he said, "assuming that all the information was correct I feel the decision was appropriate."
A former State Department staff member, Kuniholm said, "Very often when you're figuring out the target of an act of terror, the leads are very vague. It would seem that in this case they had some very clear leads."
This action, Kuniholm said, stood out from previous efforts by the Clinton administration to fight international terrorism through the courts, including prosecution of those charged with the bombings of the World Trade Center and Pan Am Flight 103.
International Perspective
Planned in tight secrecy, the U.S. move surprised leaders around the world. Afghanistan and Sudan have both denounced the attacks and complain that they were not warned of strikes on installations within their countries.
Holsti, however noted that secrecy was necessary. "If you're giving a warning, you're largely eliminating the possibility of meeting your goals."
"Should we have notified the Afghans? I think certainly not," Kuniholm added, saying that if all the people in the region who would have needed to be notified diplomatically were notified, it would have taken time, and could also have compromised the mission.
Although most agree that leaders in Sudan and Afghanistan need not have been forewarned, they disagree on the amount of information that should have been given within the region and to the United States' peers worldwide. After the attacks, Great Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair responded in support of the strikes. Conversely, Russian President Boris Yeltsin condemned them.
"We have a big problem with Russia," Holsti noted. He stressed the importance of maintaining good relations with Russia because of the effect their struggling economy has on U.S. prosperity. "It would have been wise to let Yeltsin know minutes before the attack," Holsti said, asserting that the best way of dealing with terrorism on a long term basis is through a multilateral, international approach.
Feaver dismissed such concerns, pointing out that Russia's domestic situation jeopardized their foreign policy credibility. "They have so many other things to worry about," he said. "One doesn't need to be worried about their complaints."
The strains on relationships with friendly Moslem countries such as Saudi Arabia are more worrying, Feaver added. He noted the Saudi ruling class is vulnerable to Islamic revolt and attacks by Saudi allies on Islamic countries could compromise the leadership.
Wag The Dog?
In the fractious atmosphere of contemporary U.S. politics, opponents of the Clinton administration jumped to challenge the timing of the attacks. The strikes occurred only three days after the president's testimony before Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's grand jury and his subsequent address to the nation, leading to early speculation that the two could be connected (see related story, p. 4).
Most observers dismiss such arguments. "I don't think that's the case," Holsti said. "Neither the response nor the timing of the response was connected to that."
Instead, Holsti suggested the issue could be one in which Clinton's lack of military service made him more susceptible to the suggestions of his military advisors, possibly against his own inclinations.
"I think Clinton has a tougher time saying 'no' to the military," Holsti said. He added that if Clinton had requested a strike despite objections from the military in order to divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal then a leak would have occurred.
"I think the military doesn't have much use for Clinton and would have said, 'Hell, no!' if Clinton requested a diversion," Holsti said.
One University expert however, insists that politics may have overridden military concerns. Christophe Gelpi, an assistant professor of political science, is a steadfast proponent of the so-called Wag the Dog theory, named for a 1997 Barry Levinson film in which a president staged a war to divert attention from a sexual scandal.
"This [military operation] is a really sharp change in policy for Clinton," he said, adding that, in the past, Clinton has dealt with terrorism through the courts recourse.
Gelpi said the attacks were a "cheap, low-level use of force against an adversary who can't respond" used to combat a drop in personal approval rating. Although most major polls show that Clinton's professional approval ratings have not changed significantly, Gelpi noted that after the attacks the president's personal approval jumped 10 points.
For Clinton to use the strikes as a political diversion, would not have required the collaboration of the military, Gelpi argued. He noted the military has long advocated strikes against terrorist installations, and the attacks reflect only a sudden change in Clinton's decision making. "The pressure put on him by the Lewinsky scandal altered his preference on the issue of how to deal with terrorism," Gelpi concluded.
Gelpi stressed that if the U.S. becomes involved on a more continuous basis against terrorism then it would weaken his belief in the Wag the Dog scenario. "If the Clinton administration is going to engage in a long-term engagement against terrorism, that's more costly and will not be Wag The Dog."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.