Crude, But Are They Effective?

Using air power to force Iraq to back down on chemical weapons is a lot more difficult than ejecting it from Kuwait, says TIME Pentagon correspondent Mark Thompson. Bombing is unlikely to destroy Baghdad's chemical weapons. "We'd need to destroy not only the weapons but also the scientists that create them, but we don't know where to find them," he says. "That's why inspections are better than attacks." And if bombing prompts Iraq to end to the weapons inspection program, the allies would be left with the unpalatable prospect of fighting the Gulf War all over again.

Still, Thompson sees the Bosnia example as grounds for optimism: "Smart weapons used during air strikes in 1995 forced the Bosnian Serbs to the negotiating table within three weeks. The Pentagon will use that success, rather than Gulf War I, as the template for this operation."