Obviously the British government would not have cooperated with the American timing for air strikes on Iraq if it had believed such timing was influenced by Clinton's personal problems.
The principal influence on the timing was the extreme impatience of representatives for a complex of multinational corporations centered in the US or Europe or Japan. Roughly the same nationalities as those in the Trilateral Commission or G-7.
Earlier representatives of the complex had approached the Iraqis a year or two before the Gulf War. With such unattractive proposals for the disposition of Iraq's major natural resources that the Iraqi's had to say no to maintain self-respect.
So the Iraqi's were placed on a hit-list which included Cuba, Libya, North Korea and Syria. The plan was to wait for favorable PR factors, then obliterate one of them as an intimidation of all the others.
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait provided the first set of favorable PR factors. Syria became a paradoxical ally in the ensuing obliteration.
This explains why the Japanese statement about the air strikes was so conspicuously obedient, why the German one was so vague, and the French complaint weaker than earlier this year.
This also explains why Russia and China were so pointedly angry: they demand to know why they're sometimes included in strategic multinational decision-making and sometimes not.
In some, it was a multinational initiative on behalf of business interests in the so called developed world and thus had nothing significant to do with any nations individual security. Awareness of this allowed the US military to usurp greater power than if their participation had been merely on behalf of the particular nation providing their salaries and weapons. So it was the US military which decided whether the air strikes would continue into Ramadan-even though in the US one or more civilians usually would make such an extremely sensitive foreign-policy decision.
The long term strategy is to bully "developing" nations often enough to frighten them into even greater submission. Thus in a quite roundabout-but nonetheless effective-manner this most recent bullying of Iraq makes it slightly more likely that the Asian Development Bank will succeed in its efforts to subvert Thailand's minimum wage law.
The bullying was therefore produced as a screen play on hundreds of millions of TV sets: spectacular nighttime pyrotechnics, burned bodies in hospitals, rice scattered, smiley sailors busy with their jobs, elegant color combinations for the charts tracking the rise and fall of oil prices, exquisite calligraphies for Strike-Against-Iraq logos, mealy-mouthed generals pointing at destroyed targets on a screen. The whole macabre soap-opera once more!
But note well that in this soap-opera the US government goes to war not for the interests of its people but rather for the interests of a few hundred immensely wealthy individuals in several nations besides the US. So it is not just a war against Iraq but against poor people in general. Even the poor people in the "victorious" US will suffer from this because the US military will use the war as propaganda for an even bigger slice of the national budget and the poor will receive even less.
Evidently the US military elected to continue air strikes into Ramadan as a way of stimulating an even higher level of "Arab terrorism" in the next few years in order to get US politicians even more money. But this means that the Arab responses actually will be counter-terrorism because the US military has initiated the terrorism. (The Russian Duma voted 324-1 to condemn the air-strikes as "terrorism").
An alternative to this analysis is that the US military these days is driven by a crazed Christian Crusader energy determined to punish Arab Muslims in general. If so, the military's decision to kill during Ramadan must be deemed highly effective as a way of goading Arabs towards behavior providing an excuse for such punishment.
Billionaire Christians often loathe Muslims because the latter religiously oppose interest on loans.
It's interesting that "Desert Fox" was selected as the label because that was the nickname for a German World War Two general named Rommel who manipulated tanks on the deserts of North Africa. It's not clear whether the selection signals increased acceptance of Third Reich values in the Anglo-American military or whether it merely represents a loutish ignorance of mid-twentieth century history.