Since the night of December 16th, US and British forces have been engaged in military action against targets in Iraq. Operation Desert Fox will certainly continue until at least the beginning of Ramadan this weekend.
From a military point of view, the action poses many questions - what are the aims of the operation, what type of targets will be hit, will there be heavy civilian casualties and will the operation be a success?
To put events in context, one has to look briefly at events in Ku wait eight years ago. In January 1991, Iraq had occupied Kuwait and had ignored all calls for withdrawal. The UN deadline had expired on January 15th, and the decision to attack Iraq was implemented on January 17th, 1991.
Operation Desert Storm had two phases: an air only phase which ran from January 17th to February 23rd, and a land phase with air support which began on February 24th and lasted for just 100 hours.
The aim of the air phase was to destroy Iraq's command, control and communications systems, its air defence system and its logistic support system. This involved hitting a wide range of targets inside Iraq. The aim of the land phase was to destroy Iraq's forces occupying Kuwait. The operation as a whole achieved its aims and was regarded as highly successful.
There was discussion among the military on whether the aims of the operation should have been broadened to include continuing the land phase into Iraq, taking Baghdad and toppling President Saddam Hussein.
Gen Norman Schwarzkopf, in an interview with David Frost, said: "My recommendation had been, you know, continue the march. I mean we had them in a rout and we could have continued, you know, to wreak great destruction on them."
Military assessments must, however, be subservient to political and diplomatic imperatives. The political arguments were just as cogent. There was the effect on world opinion which an invasion of Iraq might fuel. There was the effect on Arab forces involved in Desert Storm of an invasion of an Arab country by a US-led coalition. There was the fear of heavier US casualties in an occupation phase should Iraqi forces adopt guerrilla tactics.
As Gen Colin Powell put it in his autobiography: "There was no need to fight a battle of annihilation to see how many more combatants on both sides could be killed."
The war therefore finished on the Iraq-Kuwait border. Ground troops did not occupy Iraq, Sad dam remained in power. Iraqi forces had been decisively beaten but not annihilated.
Was there unfinished business? Certainly there was.
Unfinished business continued as a concern after Desert Storm. It was tackled in various pragmatic initiatives such as air-exclusion zones in the south and troop deployments in the north. Saddam's nuclear and biological warfare capabilities remained and were being developed. His army was being regenerated but had lost huge quantities of equipment.
The initiatives to counter these threats were embargo and inspection. Embargo is a very blunt instrument and invariably leads to appalling suffering by innocent civilians. Unscom, the UN inspection group - which includes an Irish Defence Forces Ordnance Corps officer in its ranks - is charged with inspection.
Unscom has been hugely successful in its task. Sanctions have also bitten, which Saddam has endeavoured to counter. Sanctions have been highlighted from the point of view of their effects on the innocents. The Unscom inspectors have been continuously disrupted in their work.
This has led to dangerous brinkmanship as we have seen in the last-minute climbdown and consequent US strike cancellation in November.
We now have Operation Desert Fox. The targets are classical military ones such as command centres, communications networks, anti-aircraft systems, military concentrations and of course suspected sites of Saddam's nuclear and biological programme. These are the targets, but is there an overall military aim?
I think there is. Given that there is no appetite for invasion and the physical toppling of Saddam Hussein, the military is involved in a mission of containment. In this strategy, sanctions exist as a bargaining chip, with their lifting a possible reward for compliance by the Iraqi authorities to Unscom inspection requests. When this fails, a short sharp military strike is seen as an inducement.
As a containment exercise, it will work. Given the huge advances in electronic and satellite surveillance, the US can ensure it has legitimate targets.
Collateral civilian casualties will nevertheless occur. It does, however, require the physical presence of Unscom inspectors on the ground to verify activity and to examine well hidden nuclear and biological programmes. Unfortunately, given the track record of the main Iraqi players, strikes will be necessary again and again.
The containment of Saddam will require military action along the lines of the current air strikes for as long as the Iraqi leadership survives.
These are the military perspectives on the situation. They do not answer the humanitarian, political or diplomatic questions.
What exactly is Saddam's nuclear or biological warfare capacity? UNSCOM has accounted for all his Scud missiles. Reports use phrases such as "possibility" and "cannot be ruled out". How relevant is President Clinton's current impeachment problem? Did it embolden Saddam's brinkmanship game in November? What level of backing has the US in the Security Council and among its allies? How immoral is it to play with the lives of innocent civilians in this deadly game?
These are all non-military questions. They are for politicians and diplomats to ponder on. One thing is certain, however. In the current situation, the military actions by the US and British forces will be governed by one key word - containment.
Lieut-Gen Gerry McMahon is a former Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces. He led the first UN inspection team into Baghdad to monitor a partial ceasefire as the Iran-Iraq war drew to a close