TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/112690/1126100.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 9.2 KB | 207 lines

                è⌐I                                                          NATION, Page 30

Time for Doubt


Bush admits that support for his Persian Gulf policy is ebbing
-- largely because he has failed to explain his goals clearly

By OTTO FRIEDRICH -- Reported by Michael Duffy and Hays Gorey/
Washington


    All of a sudden the threat of war has begun to hit home in
America. When President Bush first sent U.S. troops to Saudi
Arabia last August, he explained that their mission was "wholly
defensive," to protect that country against an Iraqi attack.
But right after the Nov. 6 midterm election, he abandoned that
explanation and announced a huge new buildup, to 380,000,
designed "to ensure that the coalition has an adequate
offensive military option."

    To many Americans, it sounded as though Bush was planning
to lead the U.S. into a war to oust Iraq from the conquered oil
sheikdom of Kuwait. Now doubts have begun to arise about
whether the nation really supports a move that some Pentagon
experts predict would bring an estimated 20,000 U.S. casualties
within the first few weeks of fighting.

    Across the nation, a small but growing antiwar movement has
started to mobilize. The most significant figures in this
emerging debate are the leaders of Congress, who were curiously
quiescent on the subject during the election campaign. They
have begun to question Bush's course, particularly his
unwillingness to seek congressional approval in advance for
offensive military operations. Some lawmakers are motivated
mainly by partisan politics; others seem most concerned with
protecting their constitutional prerogatives.

    But there is also a genuine concern about the apparent drift
toward war for uncertain or ill-defined goals. Perhaps most
striking was a request from Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana
that the recessed Congress be called back into special session
to debate a possible declaration of war. Lugar seemed confident
that the Senate would back the President, if not in a
declaration of war then in a more general resolution of support
for his policy toward Saddam Hussein. But that is uncertain,
and a close vote might suggest that Congress is not solidly
united and thus prove highly damaging to Bush's strategy of
applying pressure on Iraq. A White House spokesman brushed aside
the very idea of congressional action as "unnecessary" because
it presupposes "a war that we hope does not occur."

    Ordinarily, only a President can call a special session of
Congress. But this year, fearing that Bush might go on the
offensive during their two-month recess, the lawmakers
authorized Senate majority leader George Mitchell and House
Speaker Tom Foley to reconvene the legislature "as necessary."
While Mitchell enjoys having that weapon, he has no great
desire for a debate on the Persian Gulf -- as long as Bush
recognizes that only Congress has the constitutional authority
to declare war. For his part, Bush does acknowledge Congress's
right to declare war, but he has said that "history is replete
with examples where the President had to take action," and that
he "would have no hesitancy at all to do so."

    The antagonists met at the White House on Wednesday. To
answer the Senators' challenge, Bush actually took a copy of
the Constitution out of his jacket pocket and reminded the
legislators that although it gives them the right to declare
war, it also names him as Commander in Chief. More
significantly, he told them that he had not reached any
decision on whether to attack Iraq. Mitchell and Foley both said
emphatically that if he did decide he wanted to use force, he
would have to get congressional approval. Bush listened
politely but promised nothing. The congressional leaders seemed
satisfied, but some members did not. The Senate Armed Services
and Foreign Relations committees will hold hearings on the
crisis after Thanksgiving.

    Bush's strategy is to convince Saddam that if he does not
leave Kuwait, he will be driven out -- and perhaps lose his
life in the process. The current American buildup and all the
tough talk are designed to make that threat more credible. But
in trying to frighten Saddam, Bush has also succeeded in
scaring Americans -- and has provided congressional critics
with ammunition to snipe at what seems to be a confused and
flip-flopping policy.

    Meanwhile, Saddam was trying once again to sow dissent among
the nations that oppose him. In an interview with ABC's Peter
Jennings, he said he was willing to negotiate with the U.S. but
refused to pull out of Kuwait before the talks begin, as Bush
has demanded. Scoffed Saddam: "These are preconditions for
capitulation." So far, the debate in Washington and the Iraqi
leader's machinations have not visibly affected the resolve of
the alliance. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria declined last week
to participate in an emergency Arab summit -- proposed by
Morocco's King Hassan to make "a new and last" stab at
resolving the crisis peacefully -- until Iraq withdraws from
Kuwait and its monarchy is restored.

    Despite the President's claims that his main purpose is to
resist aggression, a majority of those questioned last week in
a poll conducted for TIME and CNN by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman
believe the primary U.S. objective is to protect Western oil
supplies. Secretary of State James Baker added to that
impression last week by offering a pragmatic but uninspiring
rationale for the operation: "If you want to sum it up in one
word, it's jobs."

    If Bush really wanted to clear up the confusion, there would
be no easier way than to recall Congress into session and
demand an explicit expression of support for his policy. Such
a resolution, while falling short of a declaration of war,
would:

    Clarify the President's intentions. As Bush acknowledged in
an interview with CNN last week, "If I haven't done as clear
a job as I might have on explaining this, then I've got to do
better, because I know in my heart of hearts that what we are
doing is right." Asking Congress for backing would require the
President to spell out his objectives in a more cogent way.
Though Bush has repeatedly stated that the U.S. would be
satisfied with an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, the President
has hinted that the U.S. might also seek to dismantle Iraq's
war-fighting capability. Many American allies would not support
such far-reaching goals.

    Clarify Congress's attitude. Taking a vote would force
members to stop trying to have it both ways, voicing doubts
about Bush's plans while doing nothing to stop them.
Congressional hearings in the absence of a vote would probably
produce nothing more than a cacophony of criticism that Saddam,
and America's European and Arab allies, would view as an
indication of U.S. indecision. They might thus tend to
undermine, rather than strengthen, the international alliance
that Bush has assembled.

    Signal U.S. resolve. If passed, a congressional resolution
would help convince Iraq of U.S. determination -- and prepare
the American people for war, should it become necessary.
Congressional deliberations would not deprive the U.S. and its
allies of the element of surprise. Saddam's troops are already
on full alert; they could be no more certain when an allied
attack might come after a congressional vote than they are now.

    The White House, nonetheless, has ruled out a special
session, partly because of concern that the Democrat-controlled
Congress might reject Bush's strategy. Instead, the
Administration's next move will be at the U.N. Security
Council. Baker spent much of last week mobilizing support for
a U.S. resolution that would authorize the use of force to
remove Iraq from Kuwait. Such a resolution would provide the
Administration with a mandate for going on the offensive even
if Congress declined to give one. Baker seems to have the
necessary votes in hand. The other permanent members of the
Security Council -- Britain, France, China and the Soviet Union
-- have all indicated they would not veto the measure, though
Soviet envoy Yevgeni Primakov last week asked for a delay so
that he can make one more try at negotiating a settlement in
Baghdad. Since the U.S. holds the Security Council presidency
this month, a vote can be expected fairly soon.

    This week the President will be in Europe for a gathering
of the heads of 34 nations, including Soviet President Mikhail
Gorbachev, at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe. Then Bush and congressional leaders will be off to the
Persian Gulf to spend Thanksgiving with the soldiers in Saudi
Arabia, many of whom have been raising questions about the
nature of their mission.

    In his interview with CNN last week, the President conceded
that there is "a ticking of the clock" toward war, in part
because public support for his policies is dropping. That, in
turn, owes to his failure to convincingly state the case for
his strategy. The gravest risk is that Bush may feel compelled
to adopt a more aggressive stance before the consensus
deteriorates further. The President would be well advised to
clarify his goals when he sits down to dinner with the troops.
There will be plenty of Americans back home intently listening
in.