UNITED STATES TO IRAQ: ACTS WILL BE ANSWERED

The United States renewed a lesson for Saddam Hussein over the weekend, launching a missile attack on Baghdad in retaliation for Iraq's government-sponsored attempt to assassinate former American President George Bush. The attack was justified, and American officials regarded it as a success. Was it a success? From a military standpoint, the answer is, clearly, yes. From a standpoint of deterrence, success depends on Saddam Hussein's and Iraq's ability to take a repeated hint. History doesn't provide us much hope in this regard.

Once more, Iraq has hauled its collective injury before the world community and feigned persecution at the hands of American "aggressors." This routine gets frequent use, and most international leaders are attuned to the "Chicken Little" calls of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein and his confederates employ revisionist history with startling speed: Wasn't it the Iraqis who started this with the occupation of Kuwait, who continue to test the limits of United Nations agreements that ended the Persian Gulf War? With straight faces, however, Iraq's officials trot out their worn lines about their nation being the globe's victim ... the same type of rhetoric is heard on the playground when a bully is bullied.

Here is a material difference between the methods of operation of the United States and Iraq. Proof abounds showing Iraq's intention to use a car bomb to kill former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait in April. A car bomb is an indiscriminate killer and could have claimed hundreds of lives in a crowded circumstance. The United States, on the other hand, took aim at a specific, military target, intending to cripple Iraqi intelligence capacity (a successful venture) as opposed to achieving a high body count. Regrettably, some lives were lost in Baghdad. But Saddam Hussein and his countrymen can't deplore these deaths domestically while sanctioning ~terrorism abroad.

President Bill Clinton gets a high mark here for acting decisively and sending a proper signal, one that state-sponsored terrorism will carry a price. His action, however, is not without irony: Defense spending in the 1980s, so readily condemned by the president's Democratic Party, provided Mr. Clinton with the options that allowed him to answer Iraq so forcefully. Advanced weaponry (repre~sented by the cruise missiles that hit Baghdad) kept American military men and women out of harm's way while delivering a strong message. In accepting commendation for his action, will President Clinton give a nod to his immediate predecessors for resisting Democratic attempts to weaken the military?

Saddam Hussein remains a menace to the planet. The bombing attack on the Iraq capital this weekend demonstrates his threatening acts will not go unanswered.