TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/091090/0910014.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 5.6 KB | 131 lines

                                                                                THE GULF, Page 27

Look Who's Antiwar Now


What's that dovish sound? Why, it's the cooing of former hawks
on the Republican right wing.


    Who made the following statement: "Before we send thousands
of American soldiers to their deaths, let's make damn sure
America's vital interests are threatened"?

    a) George McGovern     b) Jane Fonda     c) Ron Kovic
d) Patrick J. Buchanan

    Answer: Patrick J. Buchanan, fire-breathing conservative
columnist and former White House speechwriter for Richard
Nixon.

    In times of national emergency, Americans tend to rally
round the flag and get behind the President. So it is with the
crisis in the Persian Gulf. Public-opinion polls demonstrate
solid support for George Bush's handling of the showdown with
Saddam Hussein, and there have been only a few peeps of
criticism from members of Congress. Thus it comes as a surprise
that the loudest dissent against the President's policy is
being voiced by, of all people, prominent figures on the
Republican right wing.

    In language reminiscent of Vietnam-era protests, a host of
conservative skeptics have been warning against American
involvement in the Persian Gulf. To President Bush's assertion
that nothing less than America's "way of life" is on the line,
the critics reply that no vital U.S. interest is at stake.
Buchanan has been leading the charge, arguing, "There are lots
of things worth fighting for, but an extra 10 cents for a
gallon of gas isn't one of them." Ted Galen Carpenter, director
of foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute,
cautions that "making the U.S. the guardian of global stability
is a blueprint for the indefinite prolongation of expensive and
risky U.S. military commitments around the world." Edward N.
Luttwak of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and
International Studies even accuses the President of "fleeing
from the intractable economic problems at home to a more
attractive geopolitical role."

    What accounts for this sudden sprouting of caution on the
right? Partly it is a return to isolationist tendencies that
go back to the earliest days of the Republic. In 1796 George
Washington warned against the dangers of entangling alliances:
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations
is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them
as little political connection as possible." Over the
centuries, the desire to retreat from a global role has ebbed
and flowed, and in the 1930s Congress even passed neutrality
laws in the hope of preventing the U.S. from being dragged into
World War II.

    But today's dissenters differ in important ways from
isolationists of earlier eras. Though they may sound like
leftist antiwar critics, these right-wingers tended to be
die-hard supporters of the Vietnam War. But they differ with
fellow conservatives, like former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger, who have been urging a quick strike to cripple
Saddam Hussein.

    To these right-wing doves, the only justification for
risking American lives and treasure is a direct threat to a
vital U.S. interest. During the cold war, such challenges were
easier to identify. But the collapse of communism has left the
right without a sufficiently menacing bogeyman to battle
against. "These folks were all for our actions overseas as long
as there was a communist target," says Richard Murphy, senior
fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations and former
Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian
affairs. "When it's not a communist target, it's not worth
spending our blood and money on other people's problems."

    The conservatives are especially critical of the President's
insistence that Iraq's power grab poses such a danger to global
stability that it must be reversed. In Carpenter's view, only
direct threats to America's physical survival, political
independence or democratic freedoms justify the use of force.
Says he: "The possibility of higher oil prices arising from a
stronger Iraqi position in the Middle East does not meet that
standard." Though most support the naval blockade and
diplomatic pressure on Iraq, Buchanan and his cohort are
unanimously opposed to a large-scale ground offensive to force
Saddam to surrender his territorial gains.

    Like most other Americans, conservatives are trying to
puzzle out their country's role in a world they never expected
to live in. Asked what U.S. interests are still worth fighting
for, former United Nations Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick
replies, "I don't think we know yet. All our strategic thinking
has been based on cold war presumptions." Buchanan has called
for a withdrawal of all American forces from Europe, Japan and
the South Korean frontline on the ground that the countries
concerned are capable of defending themselves. "The U.S. should
review the commitments and tripwires it has all around the
world," he says.

    In any event, right-wingers with reservations about the U.S.
foray into the gulf find themselves siding with some old
intellectual foes. Liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
observes with some bemusement that his views about the American
involvement in the region are pretty much the same as those
Buchanan has espoused. "Well," says Schlesinger, a harsh critic
of the Vietnam War, "people learn." As the U.S. gropes for a
new definition of its interests in a topsy-turvy world, such
startling shifts of opinion may become commonplace.


By Jerome Cramer. Reported by Michael Riley/Washington.