TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/021891/0218993.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 10.7 KB | 261 lines

                                                                                THE GULF WAR, Page 26

PERCEPTIONS

Sorting Out the Mixed Signals


Bombarded with conflicting messages about the length of the war,
many are confounded about what to expect next

By WILLIAM A. HENRY III -- Reported by Dan Goodgame/Washington,
with other bureaus


    By any objective standard, the gulf war has gone well and
the outcome seems about as assured as anything can be in an
uncertain world. Why, then, do so many Americans (and,
seemingly, citizens of other coalition countries) have a vague
feeling of unease, if not outright disillusionment, that the
fighting seems nowhere near a conclusion? After great
expectations of a relatively easy victory, the U.S. public has
settled into a more realistic, in some cases too pessimistic,
view of what is to come. The initial uncontested air raids and
gee-whiz video glimpses of bombing turned out to be less
decisive than they seemed in the first flush of euphoria, and
the dream of immediate surrender has deteriorated into
occasional fears that nothing will crack Saddam Hussein's will.

    Although polls released last week show an increase to about
half in the number of respondents who expect combat to last six
months or more -- considerably longer than White House and
Pentagon officials predict -- about four-fifths of those polled
continue to support the war. That is much more upbeat than in
France, where a Paris Match/B.V.A. poll last week showed that
70% of respondents feared degeneration into a third world war.
But the hint of U.S. pessimism underscored a widespread feeling
that the American people had been misled, or perhaps been
encouraged to mislead themselves, about how hard it would be
to dislodge Iraqis from Kuwait.

    The people who might logically be charged with evoking this
excess cheer -- the military, the Bush Administration and
Congress, foreign leaders and the news media -- are quick to
point out that they voiced caution before the confrontation and
again even during the elation of its first days. Yet many of
these same people also aired speculative scenarios that were
much more optimistic. They veered between ebullient optimism
and tight-lipped restraint as they tried to sustain public
support and coalition unity, and keep pressure on Saddam,
without building up unreasonable hopes. Not surprisingly, much
of the public chose to hear and believe the ebullience more
than the restraint.

    It is only human nature to wish for the best, to recoil from
the prospect of massive cost and suffering. In this instance,
optimism was further fueled by vivid memories of the two-month
war in the Falklands, the nine-day conquest of Grenada and the
14-day ousting of Manuel Noriega as dictator of Panama. While
repeatedly reminding audiences that Iraq is a better entrenched
and more highly armed opponent than the loser in any of those
conflicts, President Bush also recurrently promised that any
battle against Iraq would in no way resemble the "protracted,
drawn-out war" in Vietnam. On Jan. 16, the day battle began,
Bush said, "I'm hopeful that this fighting will not go on for
long and that casualties will be held to an absolute minimum."
His words were carefully crafted to be bolstering yet
noncommittal. But one could hardly blame the public for taking
them, even in the context of his other cautions, as a virtual
pledge of a short war.

    Nor was Bush alone in such forthright optimism. Senators
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii and Ted Stevens of Alaska returned from
the gulf in December and said they had been told by military
officials that a war with Iraq could be completed in five days.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said Saddam's expectation of
victory showed he was "living in another world," and predicted
his troops would yield within three or four weeks. While few
others were daring (or imprudent) enough to offer a precise
timetable, many military and civilian officials described the
potential conflict as lopsided and brief. British Defense
Minister Tom King told the House of Commons in December, "It
will be short, sharp and quick, and the casualties on the
allied side will be kept to a minimum."

    The word quick can mean vastly different things, however,
as Representative Barbara Boxer of suburban San Francisco
indicated in January during the course of the House floor
debate against the war. Although she argued that any amount of
combat would impose too steep a price, she conceded to
colleagues, "We will win this war -- quickly! Maybe two weeks,
maybe two months -- that's quick. Maybe at most six months --
that's quick, I guess." There is, alas, a huge difference
between two weeks and six months in money spent, suffering
inflicted and lives lost.

    The news media have dutifully reported both optimistic and
pessimistic assessments over the months but have shown a
readier appetite for in-your-face remarks than cautions. That
was certainly the experience of retired Admiral William Crowe,
former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Appearing on
ABC's This Week with David Brinkley last August, Crowe
predicted, "In a major clash, we'll clean their clocks. If not
today, later." He added that both sides would pay a terrible
price. His words were quoted (sometimes misquoted) around the
world, often with the warning omitted.

    There are pragmatic reasons why journalists may, at least
subconsciously, have erred on the side of enthusiasm. They want
cooperation from military officials, without which any war on
this difficult terrain would be almost impossible to cover. And
they are eager not to be accused of being so skeptical that
they are unpatriotic -- a charge that was widely leveled during
Vietnam, arose in Grenada and Panama and is surfacing again.

    Even with the purest motives, the media have been led astray
by an irreconcilable variety of expert opinion. Stories based
on Air Force sources have tended to be more upbeat about what
air strikes alone could accomplish; stories based on Army
sources have naturally tended to emphasize the importance of
ground troops. From mid-August to mid-January, best-case
scenarios abounded of a two-week air war, with U.S. dead no
more than a few hundred. They were offered by White House,
Pentagon and Congressional officials, who sought to buoy public
support yet not make it so contingent on optimism that it
could evanesce. Although these scenarios were usually
characterized as the happiest rather than the likeliest, they
were widely reported and believed by news consumers seeking
reassurance.

    Once battle began, confusion was compounded by the use of
such terms as air supremacy and precision bombing, which mean
something particular to military officers but carry more
sweeping implications for the untutored listener. The peculiar
physical circumstances of the war, which so far have afforded
reporters few direct opportunities to witness the air battle
or determine the impact on Iraq's forces, further fueled the
optimism. The military has controlled much of the information
flow -- and has understandably stressed its achievements.

    Defense Secretary Dick Cheney warned, at the end of the
first week of battle, that "a military operation of this
intensity and complexity cannot be scored every evening like
a college track meet or a basketball tournament." Yet the
Pentagon went on releasing, and the media went on using,
comparative statistics that did resemble scores, accompanied by
bombing footage that often called to mind a Nintendo video game
in which the U.S. team was skunking the opposition. It has
often been said that sport is the modern lightning rod for the
tribal loyalties once stirred by war. If so, it may not be
surprising that war should be covered like sport, with
tub-thumping emphasis on how one-sidedly the home team will
win. But sports fans crave the illusion of a guaranteed future.
In war, misguided optimism can be as dangerous as any other
stray missile.


____________________________________________________________
SORTIN OUT THE MIXED SIGNALS


    AUGUST 31

    "In a day he would be decimated. It would be over in a day."

    -- Captain Jay Yakeley, commander of the air wing on the
U.S.S. Independence, New York Times

    SEPTEMBER 16

    "Air power is the only answer that's available to our
country to avoid a bloody land war."

    -- General Michael Dugan, Air Force chief of staff,
Washington Post

    NOVEMBER 8

    "And I would think that when he [Saddam] surveys the force
that's there . . . he will recognize that he is up against a
foe that he can't possibly manage militarily."

    -- President George Bush, White House news conference

    NOVEMBER 18

    "A short one that would be over in a matter of days."

    -- Lieut. General Sir Peter de la Billiere, British
commander in Saudi Arabia, describing a potential war with Iraq

   DECEMBER 31

    "If force is necessary, it will be quick, massive and
decisive."

    -- Vice President Dan Quayle, speaking to troops in Saudi
Arabia

    JANUARY 8

    "I judge the risk of a bloody campaign, with casualties in
the 10,000-to-20,000 range, including several thousand
fatalities, to be small."

    -- Report by Wisconsin Representative Les Aspin, chairman
of the House Armed Services Committee

    JANUARY 17

    "We are prepared to continue the operation just as long as
we need to in order to achieve our objectives . . . That could
be a significant period of time, or it could be a relatively
short period of time."

    -- Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, Pentagon news conference

    JANUARY 21

    "I feel quite sure that a protracted ground war, in the
sense that I think you're talking about -- one that takes
months or years -- yes, can be avoided."

    -- Lieut. General Thomas Kelly, director of operations for
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Pentagon briefing

    JANUARY 31

    "I think it may take three or four weeks, something like
this."

    -- Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, ABC's Primetime Live

    FEBRUARY 6

    "The task is formidable, and no one should underestimate
Saddam's military capabilities."

    -- Secretary of State James Baker, speaking to the House
Foreign Affairs Committee

    FEBRUARY 6

    "Things are going darned well over there. I feel very
confident that this matter is going to resolve itself, and it's
not going to take that long, and it is going to be total and
complete."

    -- Bush, at a bill-signing ceremony

    FEBRUARY 7

    "I believe the land war is inevitable. There is no
indication that the Iraqi army is going to crack in the
immediate future."

    -- Sir Peter, in Saudi Arabia