A protester stands outside the White House on Wednesday. (AP)

By Amy Argetsinger
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 17, 1998; Page A29

There was mild surprise as word of U.S. air strikes hit the streets of Washington, and confusion, too. There were dark suspicions about motives and timing.

But many people interviewed randomly last night in bars, offices and stores across the region expressed a grudging, almost uneasy support for the president's decision to attack Iraq – a sense that despite the circumstances, We Had No Other Choice.

"It was only a matter of time," said a somber Lynn Gregg, 50, of Columbia, as he took a break from Christmas shopping to watch the latest cable TV news reports. "It wasn't really settled the last time around."

Within an hour of the first air strikes, the region took on some of the tension it last knew back in the days of the Persian Gulf War. Protesters marched and chanted in front of the White House. Police hit the streets, alert to possible terrorist retaliation. In tinsel-trimmed bars and store windows, almost every television flickered with images of antiaircraft fire over Baghdad.

Area Muslim leaders offered the most outspoken objections to the bombing, saying they fear that, like past U.S. attacks, it will harm civilians while failing to unseat Saddam. Many criticized the timing of the attack four days before the start of Ramadan, a holy month marked by daytime fasting and observed by Muslims here as well as in the Middle East.

"All the Muslims around the world are in the attitude of Ramadan already . . . preparing for their long fast," said Ali Abu Zakuk, director of the Washington-based American Muslim Council. "We could not see the objectives of" the president's decision.

Many non-Muslims echoed Zakuk's objections to the timing of the attacks. But it wasn't the proximity to Ramadan they had in mind.

It was the nearness of the congressional impeachment vote, originally scheduled for today.

"We've been pretty easy on Saddam Hussein for some time," said Jeremy Masters, 28, a lab technician from Dale City. "It's pretty weird that we would devote so much time to diplomacy and then suddenly bomb the place. It does make me suspicious of the president."

But Samira Tallandier, a 25-year-old charity administrator waiting to meet a friend at Union Station last night, saw the bombing as an inevitable, necessary last resort.

"I think we've extended our arm as far as we could, and they haven't tried to compromise or work with us in any way," she said.

Like the suddenly imminent prospect of impeachment, the attack on Iraq jolted many out of their holiday complacency and stirred a brew of mixed emotions.

Some who supported the bombings still expressed discomfort that it was coinciding with impeachment deliberations.

"I hope people in the rest of the world don't associate the two," said Wesley Stafford, a bank department manager from Newark, Del., who was visiting Annapolis. Stafford, a Republican, solemnly commended Clinton "for having the fortitude to take this action at this time."

"It's just a shame there wasn't a more humane way," sighed Janice Mackler, 37, a medical claims administrator from Severna Park. But she admitted that she had been too busy with work and Christmas preparations to fully understand U.S. options in Iraq.

"It's happened so often now – I don't know that it matters," she said. "We're kind of cynical now. It's hard to know what was necessary and what wasn't."

"This is a very, very unfortunate time for our country," said Diana Crichton, 29, an administrative assistant from the District. "I can think of all kinds of reasons to get rid of Clinton, and then I can think of all kinds of reasons to keep him."

Outside the White House, a few protesters chanted, "One, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war."

Others jeered that the air strikes, and the harm posed to innocent Iraqis, was the real "impeachable offense."

D.C. police quickly deployed several dozen officers to keep an eye out for unattended vehicles and suspicious packages, especially around Middle Eastern embassies and government buildings. They were aided by U.S. Park Police, U.S. Capitol Police and the Secret Service.

"I realize we don't have direct responsibility," said D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey, "but as long as [the embassies are] in the District, we can't ignore that we have responsibility for them to keep the city as safe as we can."

Most local airport officials said they were merely "reemphasizing" stiffened security measures put into place after the August bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

At military bases around the region, officers and enlisted personnel found themselves in a familiar huddle in front of televisions.

"Everybody's kind of gathered around . . . saying, 'Didn't we just do this seven years ago?'‚" said Rob Koon, a spokesman at Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Southern Maryland. Most military officials offered cagey reactions to the bombing if any at all, unwilling to voice anything but solid support for decisions of the commander in chief.

At the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home in Washington, Bill Woods – a veteran of the Korean and Vietnam wars – cheered the attacks. "It's long overdue," he said. "Our forces have been kept like pit bulls on a chain for a long time."

But Woods kept thinking about the prospect of American lives in jeopardy. "In any action like this, it's going to happen," he said. "But if the world is going to stay free, that's the price you have to pay."

Staff writers Maria Glod, John F. Harris, Allan Lengel, Jay Mathews, David Montgomery, Caryle Murphy, Cheryl W. Thompson and Steve Vogel contributed to this report.