Missed Anniversary (II)

(Previous entry - covering 1991-1998 - here)

Within a few days many will mistakenly mark the "6th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War". They will be 12 years too late.

A brief look at a events (and media coverage) from late February/early March 1999, as the eighth year of the war in Iraq ended and the ninth began.

February 6, 1999: The Guardian:

Thus the world's most notorious pariah state, armed with its half-built hoard of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, tried to embrace the planet's most prolific terrorist. It was the stuff of the West's millennial nightmares, but United States intelligence officials are positive that the meeting took place, although they admit that they have no idea what happened.
<...>
But the most wanted man in the West may be at his most dangerous when cornered. And the increased pressure makes the prospect of a Saddam Hussein-Osama bin Laden alliance, once an improbable marriage of opposites, seem a more credible threat.

Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.

The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.

IN THE NO-FLY ZONES OF northern and southern Iraq, Saddam Hussein's gunners blindly fired surface-to-air missiles at patrolling American and British warplanes. In Yemen, terrorists seized a group of British Commonwealth and American tourists, and four of the hostages died in a shootout. In Tel Aviv, the U.S. Embassy abruptly closed down after receiving a terrorist threat. Perhaps it was just a typical week in the Middle East. But in a region where no one puts much faith in blind coincidence, last week's conjunction of Iraqi antiaircraft fire and terrorism aimed at the countries that had just bombed Iraq convinced some that a new conspiracy was afoot.

Here's what is known so far: Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer. U.S. intelligence has had reports of contacts between low-level agents. Saddam and bin Laden have interests--and enemies--in common. Both men want U.S. military forces out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden has been calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington's role in bombing and boycotting Iraq. Now bin Laden is engaged in something of a public-relations offensive, having granted recent interviews, one for NEWSWEEK. He says ``any American who pays taxes to his government'' is a legitimate target.
<...>
The idea of an alliance between Iraq and bin Laden is alarming to the West (what if Baghdad gave the terrorists highly portable biological weapons?).

...Ayatollah Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, the popular leader of the Shia Muslims of Iraq, got into his car to drive to his house, as he did every day, from his office on the outskirts of the holy city of Najaf near the Euphrates, southwest of Baghdad. With him were his two sons, Mustapha and Mu'ammal, who acted as his chief assistants, and a driver.

They never reached home.

In the first detailed account of the assassination, The Independent has learnt that when the car entered a roundabout, it was hit by machine-gun fire from one or more positions. Within seconds, the gunmen lying in ambush riddled the car with bullets and the men inside were dead or dying. Relatives say Iraqi security forces immediately sealed off the area and would not allow even an ambulance through.

The assassination was almost certainly the work of agents working for the Iraqi government. Baghdad has always feared the religious leaders of the Iraqi Shia, who make up about 55 per cent of the population, but who for centuries have been denied political power. In the past year, two other prominent Shia clerics have been killed and others attacked by gunmen in and around Najaf.

The government insisted that Mr Sadr be buried immediately with a minimum of mourning. But this was not enough to prevent the most widespread popular disturbances in Iraq since the Shia uprising in 1991, in the aftermath of the Gulf War, which almost overthrew President Saddam Hussein.

The scale of the outbreaks has become clear only in the past few days as witnesses reach Jordan and Iran.

The outbreaks happened because Mr Sadr, who for six years presided over his community with the tacit approval of the government, had gradually acquired a mass following among Shia youth, townspeople and tribal leaders.

Respected for his piety, he had become open in holding the regime - as well as the US and its allies - responsible for the miseries of the Iraqi people.

When his death was announced by the official news agency, demonstrations and clashes erupted throughout southern Iraq, where Shia are in the majority. In Baghdad, worshippers at a mosque in Saddam City, a vast slum, poured into the street, shouting: "God is great". The security forces immediately shot dead two brothers. Iraqi sources in Iran say 13 people died elsewhere in the city.
<...>
The worst violence occurred at a Shia shrine 20 miles from Nassariya. This may have appeared especially threatening to the government, as the shrine is close to the marshlands of southern Iraq, the redoubt of anti- government guerrillas. The security forces opened fire on demonstrators, killing at least five, including two 14-year-olds.

The death toll elsewhere is not known, but security forces are clearly under orders to fire at protesters immediately. Iraqis in exile in Iran say there were clashes in the Shia cities of Kut and al-Amarah on the Tigris, close to the Iranian border. They also report flashes of artillery fire near al-Basrah, the largest city of southern Iraq.
<...>
The well-planned purge suggests the assassination of Mr Sadr was only one element in a plan to break his movement. Laith Kubba, an Iraqi commentator living abroad, says: "After Desert Fox [the bombing of Iraq by the US and Britain] in December Saddam decided to eliminate all potential anti- government leaders in a pre-emptive strike to head off any uprising. Al- Sadr was the most visible of the Shia leaders."

MACDILL AFB, FL – At approximately 10:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time today, U.S. Air Force F-15E "Strike Eagle," and U.S. Navy F/A-18 "Hornet" aircraft enforcing the Southern No-Fly Zone in Iraq, struck two Iraqi surface-to-air missile sites near Al Iskandariyah, about 30 miles south of Baghdad.

The strikes were in response to an Iraqi aircraft violation of the no-fly zone and Anti-Aircraft Artillery fire directed at coalition aircraft.

In addition to the strikes reported earlier in the vicinity of Al Iskandariyah, U.S. Central Command reports U.S. Air Force F-16C/J aircraft fired two High-speed Anti Radiation Missiles in response to illumination from an integrated air defense radar site near Tallil.

Voice of America:

US WARPLANES HAVE STRUCK IRAQI AIR DEFENSE INSTALLATIONS ON THE OUSKIRTS OF BAGHDAD. IRAQI AUTHORITIES SAY A NUMBER OF CIVILIANS HAVE BEEN KILLED OR WOUNDED IN THE ATTACK

REPORTS SAY IT WAS THE FIRST TIME AIR-RAID SIRENS WERE HEARD IN BAGHDAD SINCE LAST DECEMBER, WHEN U-S AND BRITISH PLANES BOMBED SCORES OF IRAQI TARGETS DURING A FOUR-NIGHT PERIOD.

FOLLOWING THE AIR STRIKES, THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT BEGAN TO CHALLENGE MORE AGGRESSIVELY WESTERN PATROLS IN THE "NO-FLY" ZONES OVER NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN IRAQ. SINCE THEN, CLASHES HAVE OCCURRED ON AN ALMOST DAILY BASIS BETWEEN WESTERN PLANES AND IRAQI DEFENSES.

IRAQ SAYS THE "NO-FLY" ZONES ARE ILLEGAL, AND VIOLATE ITS TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY.
<...>
EARLIER THIS WEEK, DEMONSTRATIONS WERE REPORTED IN SEVERAL CITIES IN SOUTHERN IRAQ, FOLLOWING THE MURDER OF THE COUNTRY'S LEADING SHIITE MUSLIM CLERIC AND HIS TWO SONS, IN THE SOUTHERN CITY OF NAJAF. IRAQI OPPOSITION GROUPS AND SHIITE LEADERS IN NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES SAY THE KILLINGS ARE PART OF A GOVERNMENT PERSECUTION CAMPAIGN AGAINST SHIITE LEADERS.

THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT DENIES RESPONSIBILITY, SAYING FOREIGN FORCES ARE MASTERMINDING THE MURDERS IN ORDER TO UNDERMINE IRAQI UNITY. AUTHORITIES IN BAGHDAD SAY THERE HAVE BEEN NO ANTI-GOVERNMENT DEMONSTRATIONS; ON TUESDAY, THEY TOOK FOREIGN REPORTERS TO VISIT A CITY IN THE SOUTH TO SHOW THAT THE REGION IS QUIET.

Q: VOA: General, Baghdad has complained that the latest raid actually took place outside the no-fly zone, in fact was on the outskirts of Baghdad and is calling it a grave escalation. Do you have any comment on that?

SHELTON: Yes, first of all, let me say that anything coming out of Baghdad, I think should be questioned in terms of its veracity since we have seen very little of the truth come from Iraq in recent years. But I think that the United Nations, and indeed the international community in general, have made it very clear that Iraq must comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions, that it must end its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and that it must comply with, for example, the no-fly zone and the no-drive zone. That ties into United States' policy of containment and continued enforcement of United Nations' resolutions and we intend to continue to do that, both the no-fly zone as well as containing them in terms of maritime interdiction operations.

Actions by our coalition aircraft that are in there are taken in self defense, in response to Saddam's acts of provocation, his aggressive acts. As you know, he declared that the no-fly zone would be null and void and consequently has, in recent days, decided to both violate the no-fly zone as well as to fire his anti-aircraft artillery, his surface-to-air missiles and light up our aircraft with radar, which are an offensive action within itself. We subsequently engaged each time that he has made those violations and will continue to do so. We will continue to enforce the no-fly zone. We operate only up to the 33rd parallel, which is basically the boundary for the southern no-fly zone, and we do not go south of the 36th. We have not, and at this point do not intend to do that as an enforcement mechanism. So the report he is running is erroneous. We have not gone across the 33rd nor south of the 36th.

February 27, 1999, CENTCOM: COALITION RESPONDS TO IRAQI AGGRESSION

MACDILL AFB, FL – At approximately 1 a.m. Eastern Standard Time today, U.S. Air Force F-15E "Strike Eagles" and U.S. Navy F/A-18 "Hornets" and F-14 "Tomcats" enforcing the Operation Southern Watch No-Fly Zone struck two Iraqi military communication facilities.

The strikes were conducted near As Samawah, which is approximately 130 miles southeast of Baghdad and Al Amarah, which is approximately 170 miles southeast of Baghdad. The strikes were in response to anti-aircraft artillery fire directed at coalition aircraft on a previous mission.

February 28, 1999: INCIRLIK AIR BASE, TURKEY -- Between 1:55 and 2:15 p.m. Iraqi time, while conducting routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone, and in response to anti-aircraft artillery fire, a flight of U.S. F-15Es launched three AGM-130 air-to-ground guided missiles and dropped three GBU-24 laser-guided bombs on an Iraqi air defense headquarters and radio relay site.

Additonally, between 2:13 and 2:35 p.m. Iraqi time, F-15Es dropped three GBU-12 and three GBU-24 laser-guided bombs on the radio relay site, as well as on an Iraqi surface-to-air missile site.

The Iraqi radio relay site was being used by the Iraqi government to pass targeting data from Iraqi's radars to Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery guns shooting at coalition aircraft.

Coalition forces did not target nor was there damage to an Iraqi pipeline or an Iraqi oil pumping station.

The incidents happened near Mosul, Iraq.

February 28, 1999, US Army Public Affairs: Bush tells Gulf vets why Hussein left in Baghdad

Former President George Bush took the opportunity at the "8th Annual Reunion of Our Victory in the Desert" Feb. 28 to explain his reason for stopping Operation Desert Storm after 100 hours.

The mission was to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, and that mission was accomplished, Bush told more than 200 Desert Storm veterans gathered for dinner Sunday night at Fort Myer, Va. Most of the veterans there had fought with VII Corps in the Gulf War which ended Feb. 27, 1991.

Bush said he didn't get into the business of second-guessing his military commanders when they told him the mission was complete.

Bush said he can understand those who say, "Why didn't you finish the job?" It burns me up, because we tried to finish the job -- peacefully," he explained, adding that he tried to do it with sanctions and by assuring Hussein that the coalition forces didn't want one single soldier sent in harms way.

It was only after all peaceful means failed, he said, "that we had to fight. We ended the war in, you ended it, what was it, a hundred hours."

"I'll never forget," he said, when Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell "came over and said it was time to end the fighting -- mission accomplished. I said, 'Do [Gen. Norman] Schwarzkopf and the commanders agree.'"

Bush said that within 30 seconds Powell had Schwarzkopf on the phone assuring him that the mission had been accomplished.
<...>
Bush said the United States learned in World War II -- and learned it again before Operation Desert Storm -- that you can't appease an aggressor. "And had we gone for Saddam's ploys, had we capitulated to those advocating a more-passive course, had we relied totally on sanctions ... then we would have sent a signal of weakness to other would-be aggressors around the world," he said.

"But we didn't do that," he continued. "We were clear in our purpose from the start. And just for the record, we gave peace a chance. Between August and the time you had to go into battle, we gave it a chance.

"Once it was clear that our diplomacy had failed, that U.N. resolutions would not work, that Saddam had no interest in peace ... we did what we had to do -- no more, no less."

"We said this aggression would not stand," he said, adding that the soldiers kept his word.
<...>
Returning to the issue of Hussein's longevity, Bush jokingly called it "a sore spot with me" to be "out of work while Saddam Hussein still has a job. It's not fair," he asserted.

Still however, "he is no threat to invade another sovereign nation, and pillage its culture, and murder its citizens. He can brutalize his own people, and torment and torture them, but he can no longer pose a threat to his neighbors. And that's just one of the benefits" of Desert Storm.

Q: Everyone's always said to me "Oh, they had a very clear objective" you know, "Get rid of the Iraqis from Kuwait." Could you explain to me in headline terms, just very briefly, why wasn't that good enough?

Schwarzkopf: Well I think, I think... What has happened since then... is a pretty clear example of why that probably wasn't good enough.

I mean the whole question that we hear over and over again, "Why didn't you go to Baghdad and, and capture Saddam Hussein? Why didn't you inflict greater damage on the Republican Guard?" When the decision was made to end the war, the decision was made, it's because I had accomplished all of my military objectives. The things that now that people are talking about, capturing Saddam Hussein, destroying ... inflicting more damage on the Republican Guard, etc., etc., etc., these are political decisions, far beyond the military realm.

I had to establish my own objectives, and my own objectives frankly turned out to be, you know, number one objective: Iraqis out of Kuwait, number two: inflict as much damage as I could on their armed forces so they couldn't come back another day.

The kick them out of Iraq objective was one that was given to us by United Nations Resolution. But the second part of this thing; inflict maximum damage upon the Iraqi armed forces so that they cannot return, you know, shortly thereafter, was another objective that evolved. But again you'll never find that in writing, anywhere.
<...>
Q: Colin Powell called you at three o clock, and you discussed how much more time was needed. Can you tell me the conversation? What happened?

Schwarzkopf: The exact conversation was-- "What.. what are your plans?" And I told him--"I plan to continue the operation as it was originally designed, and that is to continue with this envelopment movement that went over and drove all the way to the sea and cut off everybody below".

And he then asked me when I thought that would be completed and I told him that I thought that would be completed by the end of the day on the 28th. This was information that I'd asked my Army commander about and he had told by the end of the day of 28th.

And then he asked me-- "Could you stop tomorrow morning?"

And I did a very very quick mental calculation and basically said that we have accomplished all of our military ojectives and if need be we could stop tomorrow morning.

I will confess to you that part of that deliberation had to do with American casualties. We had accomplished what we'd accomplished with so few casualties and another day of the war, more or less, would only cause more people to die that didn't need to die.

So I said yes if he wanted us to stop the following morning I could stop, but I would have to have sufficient advance notice to make sure that the word got out to all of my troops.

And he said "OK fine. I will get back to you".

He then called me back later and we joked, we actually joked at the time about you know, I think I told him-- "If you stop this thing when you do it'll be the four day war or the three day war, or something like that which will then make it the most successful war in history!"

. Q: Well let me ask you about what do you remember saying to him about the five day war?

Schwarzkopf: Well, we had already talked about it in the war room when John Yeosock had told me that he felt that they could accomplish all their objectives by the night of the 28th and I don't know who it was, and maybe it was me who came up with the fact that "Hey, this is a five day war and up until now everybody has said, you know, the Six Day War was the greatest and most rapid victory there was and now, all of a sudden, we have a five day war!"

So it sort of had a good feeling about it and it was a joke and I just said to him I said "I hope you realise that this would be the five, you know, there'd be a five day war!" And he laughed and said "That's right".

He called me back subsequently and said "How about if we shut the war off at ..." midnight I guess it was, Washington time, which would of made it eight o clock in the morning our time or nine o clock in the morning or something like that. And I said "Fine. I once again have to get to my commanders to make sure that they can all do this but I think they can and unless I get back to you that'll be fine".

And then he made the comment "Well that'll make it a hundred hour war!" And I laughed and I said "Terrific!" You know, the whole conversation was a lighthearted one. We were both feeling very good about what was happening at that time.

And I checked with my commanders and they, in fact, assured me that they could meet those time lines and that's what transpired.
<...>
I didn't have any compunctions about stopping and to this day I don't. It was a decision that had to be made at some point and that was as good a point as any.

Q: Did Colin Powell in either conversation.. or the first conversation say to you, as some people have implied to me, that "Hey, you know, the President feels it's time to stop. He's worried about the carnage" and you sort of reluctantly said "Yeh, well, if the President feels that let's do it".

Schwarzkopf: Absolutely not.

Q: Was it the impression given to you that the President wanted it stopped?

Schwarzkopf: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Colin Powell did say to me at one point that the reporting has turned negative, that there are photographers all over the `highway of death' talking about the innocent people that have been killed on the `highway of death' and there is some concern in Washington about this kind of reportig and implied that that might have been driving the decision to stop when we did. But there was never any implication that the President thinks he wants to stop it now so therefore, you know, we ought to stop it.
<...>
Q: But in your book you talk about.. "Well, if Freddy Franks had moved a bit faster, maybe we would have got at the Republican Guard". His line is "If you wanted to get at them so badly, why did you stop then?" Freddy Franks said "I was poised that night, I couldn't believe it when I was stopped. Tomorrow was going to be the decisive battle".

Schwarzkopf: The answer to that is quite simply that I didn't stop anything!

The President of the United States in Washington D.C. stopped it. It wasn't General Schwarzkopf that stopped anything!

Anybody who knows anything about the military knows that we have our masters and the decision was made in Washington to stop the war when it did. They asked me if I concurred in that decision and I did concur in that decision.
<...>
Q: Let me rephrase this to you..... just for the record I'm trying to establish, did you feel that the driving force was coming from the White House or was it a matter of you saying "No no, we've done everything, let's finish it" or was it, as others have told me who were close to you, that you felt that the White House was saying "Hey, we'd really like to stop this".

Schwarzkopf: Oh there's no question about the fact that this was presented to me as a fait accompli in Washington.

It was Washington had made the decision that they wanted the war to stop at midnight and they were just calling me to find out if I had any violent objections. You know, it was never presented "Well, we'd like to stop it at midnight but if you don't concur with this then we'll let you go on all day tomorrow". That was not the case at all. It was quite the contrary, it was presented to me as a fait accomplit "Do you concur in this decision?"

March 1, 1999: United Nations -- The United Nations has reported that Iraq is not distributing about $275 million worth of medical supplies and a significant quantity of other goods have not been distributed or, in some cases, even ordered under the Security Council program designed to help Iraqi civilians.

In a written report to the Security Council on the "oil-for-food" program, Secretary General Kofi Annan said he is concerned over the long delays between the time supplies arrive in Iraqi warehouses and when the Iraqi Government distributes the supplies to civilians.

March 1, 1999: Coalition forces respond to Iraqi radar threats

INCIRLIK AIR BASE, TURKEY -- Between 2:30 and 3:30 p.m. Iraqi time, while conducting routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone, and in response to several incidents of Iraqi radar targeting coalition aircraft, U.S. F-15Es dropped more than thirty 2,000 pound and 500 pound laser guided bombs on Iraqi communications sites, radio relay sites, and anti-aircraft artillery sites.

The incidents happened near Mosul, Iraq.

There was no damage to coalition aircraft.

Damage to Iraqi forces is currently under assessment.

March 2, 1999, European Stars And Stripes:

More than two months after the four days and 100 targets of Operation Desert Fox, the United States, with help from the British, continues an almost daily string of airstrikes against Iraq at the provocation of President Saddam Hussein’s air defenses.

Monday’s attacks were the latest, when a group of Air Force F-15Es dropped a total of 30 bombs on anti-aircraft batteries, communications and radio relay sites near Mosul after being targeted by Iraqi radar. No U.S. planes were damaged, and the damage to Iraqi defenses was still under investigation, according to the U.S. European Command.

While Operation Desert Fox was caused by Saddam’s refusal to allow United Nations weapons inspectors free access to potential storage sites, the latest attacks are a result of Saddam’s challenge of the two no-fly zones set up after the Gulf War.

It’s a challenge the United States has been happy to accept — and one that has allowed pilots to fire missiles and drop bombs on Saddam’s military in response, including targeting Iraqi defenses that don’t pose immediate threats to them.
<...>
Britain’s Sunday Telegraph two weeks ago reported that Russia made a $160 million deal with Iraq to muscle-up its dwindling missiles and upgrade its squadrons of MiGs. Russia denies that.

Coalition forces strike with 'greater flexibility'

WASHINGTON -- The same day they struck Iraqi targets in the largest attack since the end of Operation Desert Fox, coalition forces now have "greater flexibility to attack those systems which place them in jeopardy," the secretary of defense said.

William S. Cohen's remarks at the Pentagon came just hours after Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles dropped more than 30 2,000-pound and 500-pound laser-guided bombs on Iraqi communications, radio relay and anti-aircraft artillery sites.

The secretary of defense said the wider latitude to strike against threats will give coalition aircrews greater protection against the web of ground threats arrayed by Saddam Hussein's forces, including anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles.

"They are not simply going to respond to an AAA site or to a SAM site," Cohen said. "They can go after command-and-control, communications centers as well, that allow Saddam Hussein to try to target them and put them in jeopardy."

Amid reports that this and an earlier coalition strike might have damaged a pipeline carrying oil from Iraq to Turkey, the secretary said civilian sites were not targeted.

"We did in fact target a communications facility, which may or may not have interrupted the flow of oil temporarily going into Turkey," Cohen said. "But we believe the target itself was one that was used for communication purposes to their military.

"I might point out, contrary to the Iraqi claims about this jeopardizing the Oil for Food program, that the United Nations itself has pointed out that there are some $275 million in food and medicine and supplies which are stored in Iraqi warehouses that are not being distributed to the people, to the Iraqi people," Cohen said. "That is the responsibility and obligation that falls squarely on the shoulders of Saddam Hussein."

The secretary also said that, in contrast to widespread broadcast of coalition fighters' gun camera video in January, defense officials have refused to make any recent releases, to protect airmen from being targeted on the ground. Cohen said such videos could provide information to the enemy.
<...>
"There's only one person responsible for whatever is taking place in Iraq today, and that is Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions," Cohen said.

March 3, 1999: "Iraq remains a serious threat to international peace and security. I remain determined to see Iraq comply fully with all of its obligations under Security Council resolutions," President Clinton said in his March 3 report to Congress on the status of efforts to obtain Iraq's compliance with United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions.
<...>
"As long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he represents a threat to the well-being of his people, the peace of the region, and the security of the world," Clinton said. "We will continue to contain the threat he poses, but over the long term the best way to address that threat is through a new government in Baghdad."

March 3, 1999: United Nations -- The United States, along with the other members of the Security Council, wants to see Iraqi oil exports under the "oil-for-food" program "up and running as quickly as possible," US Ambassador Nancy Soderberg said March 3.

Talking with journalists after the head of the UN's Iraq program briefed council members privately, Soderberg said that "there was general agreement that the oil must begin to flow and that we want to get it up and running as quickly as possible."

The Iraqi pipeline "was not hit; the pumping stations were not hit; and we absolutely do not target civilians -- that's absolutely false," the ambassador said, referring to Baghdad's claims that US pilots hit the pipeline, stopping the oil exports.

"The area that was hit was, in our belief, part of the Iraqi air defense system communications area. The Iraq command and control is part of the area that is threatening our pilots," she said.

Soderberg said that she reminded the council that "US forces in the region are acting to protect the vulnerable population of Iraq."

March 4, 1999, CENTCOM: COALITION AIRCRAFT STRIKE TARGETS SOUTH OF AL BASRAH

MACDILL AFB, FL – At approximately 8:15 a.m. Eastern Standard Time today, British Royal Air Force GR-1 "Tornado" aircraft enforcing the Southern No-Fly Zone struck an Iraqi military radar site approximately 15 miles south of Al Basrah near Ash Shuaybah.

The strikes were in response to two Iraqi violations of the Southern No-Fly Zone and aircraft illuminations by Iraqi surface-to-air missile sites.

March 6, 1999, Voice of America:

U-S WARPLANES LAUNCHED NEW ATTACKS ON IRAQI AIR DEFENSE INSTALLATIONS IN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN NO-FLY ZONES OVER IRAQ SATURDAY. THE LATEST CLASHES COME JUST TWO DAYS AFTER IRAQ RESUMED PUMPING OIL THROUGH A PIPELINE DAMAGED IN SIMILAR STRIKES EARLIER IN THE WEEK.

THE ATTACKS ARE THE LATEST IN ALMOST DAILY CLASHES BETWEEN IRAQI AND WESTERN FORCES IN THE PAST TWO MONTHS. LAST SUNDAY, US PLANES STRUCK AN IRAQI COMMUNICATIONS SITE, SHUTTING DOWN A PIPELINE THAT CARRIES IRAQI OIL TO NEIGHBORING TURKEY. THE ATTACK DREW CRITICISM FROM TURKEY, WHICH ALLOWS WESTERN PLANES TO BE BASED IN ITS TERRITORY.

U-S DEFENSE SECRETARY WILLIAM COHEN SAID FRIDAY THAT US FORCES WILL AVOID FUTURE ATTACKS ON THE PIPELINE.

New York -- The major obstacle in ridding Iraq of its banned chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles is a divided Security Council, not allegations that UN weapons inspectors were spies, the head of the UN special Commission overseeing the destruction of Iraqi weapons (UNSCOM) says.

UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler also denied that he approved the use of UN weapons inspection teams as a cover for US spying on Iraq.