Sunday, December 20, 1998 -- HONG KONG -- So the great powers have decided to call it a day. I think as far as the U.S. and Britain are concerned 'Operation Desert Fox' was an unqualified success. Both managed to look terribly tough and uncompromising while at the same time exuding sensitivity to the concerns of the World Moslem community - and ensuring Saddam, sanctions and the oil embargo remain firmly in place.

Washington led allies still have a good reason to maintain a huge military presence in an area of the World where they really shouldn't be and Iraq won't be flooding the market with cheap oil anytime soon. Yep, an unqualified success.

For quite a while we were kept wondering if the bombing would continue after the impeachment hearings and the start of the Moslem Holy month of Ramadan. Well, we didn't have to wait long, did we. That wasn't a question. The question: Why were were fed the line that it might not be politically correct to bomb the Iraqi rag-heads after the start of Ramadan. Sure, there had been one or two voices raised among the Moslem community of nations, but perhaps not to the extent that should have worried tough guys.

Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are not the greatest leaders in the world. Why? - because they pretend to have a conscience. Transparent hypocrisy. Blair's assertion that even at the very beginning it was determined that 'Desert Fox' would end today simply lacks credibility. I know that military leaders always assume they know how long a campaign will last - but they also take into account variables they have no direct control over. For example, what if Saddam Hussein had shot back? That would have meant a total rethink of strategy. It was clear from Blair's statement that something other that genuine success - or Ramadan - would be the deciding factor of when to stop the air assault.

Y'know, I tend to prefer the type of leader who says what he or she means and means what he or she says. Pity most of them are dictators - and that's a heck of a thing for a liberal to say! Anwar Sadat for example. He and his pals had no such religious concerns when they attempted a devastating attack on Israel on October 6th, 1973. For those of you not familiar with history or the Jewish faith, that was Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Far from subscribing to the idea that rag-heads are sneaky S-O-B's - they understood that they'd go down in history for their own 'Day of Infamy' - but the surprise also gave them the best chance of success. War is hell, it isn't supposed to be a nice business run by folks who say sorry everytime someone gets killed.

The Christian West would have been outraged if the former Soviet Union had launched an attack on Good Friday or Christmas Day. Okay, so the Soviets weren't Christians and they hated us. They wanted to win a war, but to ignore our religious festivals and take advantage of our unpreparedness?!!! It is shocking how they could be so insensitive.

Reality check. The Soviets had war-plans to attack the West when we were most vulnerable. Religious holidays when we all get drunk and are full of 'love thy neighbour' spirit - were very high on their list of 'this would be a good day' days. The Soviets appreciated this potential advantage long before the Arabs decided to attack Israel on Yom Kippur, 1973. Nah, Ramadan was never a factor in this.

Russia's opposition to the air attack wasn't because they thought it was inappropriate to the alleged crimes or that it wouldn't be a nice thing to force civilians into nasty bomb shelters at a religiously sensitive time. The fact is, Iraq owes Russia zillions of dollars and Mr 'Democracy - but don't pay the workers' Yeltsin sees the opportunity of zillions more in business with Mr 'I gassed civilians and got away with it' Saddam - if only the Security Council can rehabilitate the Butcher of Baghdad and get sanctions lifted. Russia ain't too keen on seeing a change in leadership either. Their apparent willingness to bust sanctions and support the Saddam regime has not escaped the notice of the Iraqi opposition in waiting. They might just be tougher guys to deal with.

Heck, for some reason I can't help thinking about Chechnya every time the Russian ambassador spoke about a disproportionate response.

So, for a week we were treated to some great television footage and radio packages, the defense contractors are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of replacing all those Tomahawks - and we, the public, sucked it all up along with the messages that 'Saddam needs to be taught a lesson' and 'we really are sensitive to other religions'. Yeah, right.

I do not believe there was anything like a "Wag the Dog" plot to deflect attention from the impeachment. Blair isn't that much of a patsy. Not quite. Over the past year Clinton and Blair painted themselves into a corner and they had no option but to act. My only real areas of concern are the possible leaking of Inspector Butler's report and the travel plans of Ms Amanpour.

One comment from Clinton's announcement of the end of the air assault did stick in my mind and cemented my belief that U.S.-British foreign policy in the Gulf is not as clear cut as the politicians would like us to believe. It was the bit where Clinton talks about further attacks if Saddam threatens his neighbours and the Kurds. I've always wondered why it is okay for that paragon of human rights, Turkey, to launch massive cross-border incursions into Northern Iraq to thrash the be-jeezus out of the Kurds - but poor old Saddam is reviled because he tested anthrax on them.

What was it all for? Go back to paragraph one.

-- Chris Gelken