TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/012191/0121014.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 7.5 KB | 166 lines

                ç                                                              THE GULF, Page 32

A Reluctant Go-Ahead


As hopes for peace fade, a divided Congress authorizes the
President to lead the United States into battle

By RICHARD LACAYO -- Reported by Hays Gorey and Nancy Traver/
Washington


    Never had Congress faced a challenge quite like it. In the
Persian Gulf, 430,000 U.S. troops prepared to launch into
battle against the Iraqi invaders of neighboring Kuwait. An
American President had dispatched those troops to the Middle
East, and the United Nations had authorized the use of force
against the Iraqis unless they withdrew by Jan. 15. Yet
Congress, the only branch of government with the constitutional
power to declare war, had still not spoken, and the President
was threatening to move with or without the lawmakers'
approval. Last week, after the failure of the Geneva talks
between Secretary of State James Baker and Iraqi Foreign
Minister Tariq Aziz, Congress took up the question of war and
peace with a rare sense of urgency. Said Speaker of the House
Thomas Foley: "This is a matter of enormous moment."

    Once the speeches were made and the votes were counted, a
majority of the lawmakers had lined up behind the President and
the battle that everyone had hoped to avoid seemed closer than
ever. The House, by a vote of 250 to 183, and the Senate, 52
to 47, adopted resolutions that, in language approved by the
White House, authorized the President to use military force
against Iraq after Jan. 15. Before the vote, Senate Republican
leader Bob Dole summarized the paradoxical hope of the
resolutions' supporters: "This is the best chance for peace."

    Though the measures also required that the President first
certify to Congress that sanctions were not working, supporters
said the resolutions were tantamount -- but not identical --
to a declaration of war. Both houses also defeated alternative
resolutions, sponsored by the Democratic leadership, calling
for a delay in military action until sanctions had been given
more time to work. In the Senate it lost 53 to 46 with 10
Democrats but just one Republican, Iowa's Charles Grassley,
abandoning the party line. The House vote was 250-183.

    At a press conference afterward, George Bush called the
outcome in Congress "a clear signal that Iraq cannot scorn the
Jan. 15 deadline." The votes also represented a tactical
victory for Bush and a stunning turnaround of congressional
sentiment. When the newly elected 102nd Congress assembled in
Washington on Jan. 3, few lawmakers believed a majority could
be found in either chamber favoring a quick resort to force.
What seemed to be shaping up instead was a tug-of-war with the
President over Congress's constitutional right to declare war.
For months Bush had avoided seeking congressional approval of
his gulf policies, fearing that a narrow victory -- or worse,
a defeat -- would further embolden Saddam Hussein. But when it
became apparent that the returning lawmakers were determined
to open an early debate over his Persian Gulf policies, Bush
relented. By early last week the White House was circulating
a resolution seeking congressional approval for the use of
military force.

    The failure of the Geneva talks -- and particularly the
impression of Iraqi intransigence -- made a confrontation seem
all but inevitable and swept congressional fence-sitters into
the President's camp. "If war is more likely, more people want
to be behind the President," explained Indiana Congressman Lee
Hamilton, an opponent of the Bush trot toward war.

    Acting with a political deftness he has rarely shown on
domestic issues, Bush skillfully worked Congress into his
corner. With most Republicans already behind him, the President
moved quickly after the Geneva breakdown to gain support from
Democrats like Florida Congressman Dante Fascell, chairman of
the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He also sought the backing
of longtime supporters of Israel in the House like New Jersey's
Robert Torricelli and Stephen Solarz of New York, who became
the strongest Democratic voice in the House in favor of war
against Iraq.

    Bush got help from another Democrat early in the week when
Representative Les Aspin of Wisconsin, the chairman of the
House Armed Services Committee, painted a relatively rosy
picture of a potential war. In a report he prepared based on
public hearings and private conversations, Aspin estimated that
in a war relying heavily on American air assaults, the U.S.
stood a good chance of winning in less than a month. He figured
casualties in such a conflict might be in the range of 3,000 to
5,000, with up to 1,000 dead.

    Even as the President was trying to line up bipartisan
support, the Democratic leadership was leading the fight to
give sanctions more time. The antiwar factions in both houses
fell in behind nearly identical resolutions drafted by two
presidential hopefuls: House majority leader Richard Gephardt
and Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee. Nunn, with his hard-line reputation on most
other military issues, was particularly important for attracting
wavering Democrats.

    When the Senate opened debate on Thursday, majority leader
George Mitchell laid out the antiwar, pro-sanctions position.
Warned Mitchell: "The grave decision for war is being made
prematurely." In the House, Gephardt stressed that the
opponents of war were not friends of Iraq. "The only debate
here in the Congress is over whether we slowly strangle Saddam
with sanctions or immediately pursue a military solution," he
insisted. "The choice is really over tactics." Robert Michel,
the House G.O.P. leader, countered that those seeking to rein
in the President's war power were creating a "brass choir of
indecision, doubt and confusion."

    While Congress debated, the White House continued to canvass
for votes. On Thursday the President called in 17 Senators,
including seven Democrats, to solicit their support. Next
morning, more than 100 members of the House mushed through a
snowstorm to a White House breakfast at which the President
pleaded for their backing. Said Bush: "The last, best chance
for Saddam Hussein to get the message is in your hands." To
counter pro-sanctions arguments, CIA Director William Webster
sent a letter to the Hill asserting that even if the embargo
remained in place for six months to a year, it would not force
Iraq from Kuwait.

    In contrast to the President's aggressive lobbying, the
Democratic leadership took a more hands-off approach toward
rank-and-file Congressmen. House Speaker Tom Foley argued that
arm-twisting was not the right way to influence colleagues on
what he termed "a matter of conscience," but that deferential
stance probably cost antiwar Democrats precious votes.

    Even though Congress has now spoken, Saddam Hussein, no
great student of the democratic process, may still conclude --
particularly from the relative closeness of the Senate vote --
that the U.S. is hopelessly divided and lacks the resolve to
go to war. That would be a grave mistake. Armed with the U.N.
resolution, congressional approval and his own strong
conviction that Baghdad's aggression cannot go unanswered, Bush
will almost surely unleash his forces soon if Iraq does not
withdraw. But unless that conflict is short and successful, with
relatively low casualties, the divisions in Congress and in
U.S. public opinion will rapidly grow sharper -- and so will
Bush's headaches.