TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/111290/1112100.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 7.6 KB | 147 lines

                b                                                              NATION, Page 24

COVER STORIES

On the Warpath


Spreading confusion about his plans, Bush escalates his verbal
offensive against Saddam Hussein -- and then pulls back

By OTTO FRIEDRICH -- Reported by Dean Fischer/Cairo and J.F.O.
McAllister/Washington


    "Darn," said President Bush last week to express his
indignation about Saddam Hussein's mistreatment of his U.S.
hostages. "The American flag is flying over the Kuwait embassy,
and our people inside are being starved by a brutal dictator.
Do you think I'm concerned about it? You're darn right I am. And
what am I going to do about it? Let's just wait and see. Because
I have had it with that kind of treatment of Americans."

    If that was not exactly the most warlike battle cry ever
issued, it was typical of a week of confusing and contradictory
signals on whether the U.S. is preparing to launch an armed
attack to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait. After Defense Secretary
Dick Cheney and General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, recommended that 100,000 U.S. troops be added
to the 210,000 already deployed along the Persian Gulf, there
were widespread rumors and speculation that the offensive would
start soon after this week's congressional elections -- or
before Christmas, or early in the new year. In contrast, Soviet
President Mikhail Gorbachev declared that any "military
solution" was "unacceptable" after his personal envoy, Yevgeni
Primakov, returned from a second exploratory mission to Baghdad.
There Primakov claimed to find Saddam "more disposed to a
political solution," a development invisible to everyone else.

    President Bush, campaigning for Republican candidates in
California, began the week's verbal barrages by denouncing
Iraq's siege of foreign embassies in Kuwait as "unconscionable
and inhumane." Then he seemed to escalate. "I am as determined
as I have ever been that this aggression will not stand," he
declared. "We have a lot of troops there, and they are highly
motivated. That alone is sending a strong message to Saddam
Hussein." Speaking in Los Angeles the same day, Secretary of
State James Baker was even more explicit: "We will not rule out a
possible use of force if Iraq continues to occupy Kuwait."

    Other Administration officials went still further by
suggesting that the U.S. would send an unarmed cargo ship to
resupply the embassy in Kuwait City, where 27 diplomats are
reportedly down to their last month's worth of canned tuna and
rice. If Iraq tried to interfere with the mission, that might
provide a pretext for massive military retaliation. Saddam's
reaction was to put his commanders on "extreme alert" in order
to "thwart the perfidious intentions of the United States and
its allies to launch an attack in the coming few days."

    As the war talk escalated, congressional leaders sought
reassurance that Bush is not planning to launch an offensive
while the legislature is in recess for the next three months.
Bush refused to commit himself. Although the Constitution gives
only Congress the authority to declare war, Bush, like several
recent Presidents, claims the right to use military force on his
own. "Nobody asked the President to rule out a military option,"
said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont after the leaders
conferred with Bush. "But many of us told him to make sure that
we don't use the military option out of impatience."

    Did the President really mean those threats of war, or was
he just trying to get voters' minds off the budget mess and the
impending recession and end his own slump in the opinion polls?
Bush branded those suggestions as "the ultimate of cynicism and
indecency." When questioned by reporters about whether he was
attempting to prepare the American people for war, Bush denied
it. "I'm not trying to sound the tocsin of war," he said. "I
want to have a peaceful resolution to this question. I've
indicated we're prepared to give sanctions time to work, and
I'll repeat that. But I'm not ruling out further options."

    When the U.N. voted to bar all trade into or out from Iraq,
many experts estimated it would take at least six months, and
perhaps even a year, before economic collapse would paralyze the
Iraqi army and provoke street riots or coup attempts. So far,
the political impact of the sanctions has been virtually nil.
One effect, the imposition of gas rationing, was abruptly
canceled last week when Saddam announced that the Oil Minister
had underestimated the available supplies of necessary chemical
additives. After firing the minister, Saddam gave the job to his
son-in-law.

    Imports of industrial goods, raw materials and machinery
have been reduced by 90%, according to State Department
spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler. Shortages of imported lubricants,
spare parts and chemicals are causing production difficulties.
Bread, sugar and soap are being rationed.

    Despite all this, there are many weak spots in the embargo.
Western intelligence officials have learned that Saddam
stockpiled rice, wheat and other foods before invading Kuwait,
and the Iraqi army's plundering of Kuwaiti warehouses has
increased Iraq's supplies substantially. Besides, Iraq has had
a record harvest this year; the markets contain plenty of fruits
and vegetables. One reason for the bountiful supplies is that
Saddam's government has eased many controls on farmers and
increased food prices. Higher prices have also inspired Iranian
and Turkish smugglers to supply the black market.

    Industry has been more directly hit by the lack of spare
parts, and many long-term building projects have had to be
postponed, but cannibalizing and improvising can make a lot of
difference. Another major effect of the embargo has been to cut
Iraq's ability to pay for its imports with oil revenues. Here,
too, Saddam can find ways around the restrictions. For one
thing, he confiscated some $1 billion in gold in the Kuwaiti
treasury. Libya's Muammar Gaddafi has reportedly been offering
him credit. In addition, Saddam runs a police state that can
easily squelch discontent about plunging living standards.
Adding up all the guesses and intangibles, Western intelligence
officials estimate that Saddam can survive the embargo pretty
well until some time in the middle of next year, at the earliest
-- a long time for the fraying Western coalition to hold
together.

    The blockade might eventually persuade Saddam to withdraw.
In fact, Washington's bellicose talk last week, however
discordant, was basically intended to enhance the blockade's
impact. "In terms of shaping Saddam's calculus," says a State
Department official, "what you're looking for is not economic
deprivation that causes riots in the streets but rather a sense
that the sanctions are gradually having effect, that they're not
going to be loosened, that the international consensus in favor
of them is strong. Then, projecting them out into the future,
Saddam sees a point where they are going to affect his
survival."

    In theory, then, the tocsins of war might make war
unnecessary, if the U.S. and its allies remain patient enough
for the blockade and pressure to work. That, in turn, will
require unified support from the American people for the means,
as well as the ends, of Bush's policy. The President's inability
to clarify how he plans to get Saddam out of Kuwait last week
did nothing to halt the confusion. Perhaps he can better explain
his objectives to the Americans with the most at stake in the
crisis: the troops he will be meeting on a Thanksgiving Day
visit to the gulf.