home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=91TT0268>
- <title>
- Feb. 04, 1991: "We're Not Going to Lose"
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1991
- Feb. 04, 1991 Stalking Saddam
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- THE GULF WAR, Page 28
- INTERVIEW:Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf
- "We're Not Going to Lose"
- </hdr><body>
- <p>By Dean Fischer/Riyadh and H. Norman Schwarzkopf
- </p>
- <p> Q. Have you had any surprise at all in this first week of
- war?
- </p>
- <p> A. The biggest surprise, and it's a very pleasant one, is
- so far the exceptionally low number of casualties we have
- taken. Nobody expected the casualties to be this low.
- </p>
- <p> Q. Did the Iraqi response, or lack of response, surprise
- you?
- </p>
- <p> A. No, no, we had been told that they might do that. It is
- not the most desirable outcome, but it certainly doesn't come
- as a surprise.
- </p>
- <p> Q. Why do you say it isn't the most desirable outcome?
- </p>
- <p> A. Well, the fact that they have chosen not to fight us in
- the air is not the most desirable. The Air Force guys would
- tell you that if they had their druthers, they'd want those
- folks to come up and fight them so we could go ahead and
- eliminate them much quicker. But we had been told that Saddam
- Hussein decided a long time ago that he would weather our first
- strike, and then having done that, he would bring his forces
- to bear and defeat us.
- </p>
- <p> Q. Is it realistic to think he can do that?
- </p>
- <p> A. I don't think so. I don't think so at all. Again, I think
- this is another miscalculation. I think Saddam Hussein thought
- we were going to do things the way he does business. After one
- or two days the air campaign would be over, and then we would
- not be able to sustain a campaign against him. That is totally
- incorrect.
- </p>
- <p> Q. Can you sustain this campaign as long as you want?
- </p>
- <p> A. Absolutely. There's no end to it.
- </p>
- <p> Q. Is there anything you can think of that Iraq might do to
- give people a nasty shock?
- </p>
- <p> A. We know there is chemical capability. We know Saddam has
- an aerial-delivery capability of those chemical weapons. He
- used them on his own people. So a nasty shock would be if he
- were somehow to launch a surprise attack against our forces,
- blanket them with chemical weapons and kill large numbers of
- Americans and our allies. So, of course, we've got a strategy
- to defeat that. One of the biggest errors a commander can make
- is to assume away the capabilities of his adversaries. I'm not
- going to make that mistake.
- </p>
- <p> Q. Do you envision a ground attack against our forces?
- </p>
- <p> A. The likelihood of him launching a ground attack of any
- magnitude and achieving an element of surprise is unlikely. Now
- he might mount a battalion-size attack and catch one sector of
- our forces by surprise. But the big question is, Does he have
- a chemical capability with his Scuds? If he were to start
- lofting these missiles into the populated areas of Saudi Arabia
- or Israel, that would be an undesirable development.
- </p>
- <p> Q. Is an allied ground offensive going to be necessary?
- </p>
- <p> A. We have an integrated campaign plan we are going to
- continue to execute until we have accomplished the objectives
- of the United Nations resolution. We're prepared to do whatever
- is necessary to accomplish that. The real question is what is
- going to be necessary before Saddam Hussein realizes, or his
- people realize, that they're going to lose this war, and it is
- to their advantage to terminate it on the grounds of the U.N.
- resolution. Saddam Hussein is literally destroying his own
- nation right now. Clearly we are doing everything we can to
- avoid killing innocent people, and that has given him a shield
- behind which he can hide. We're willing to do that to
- demonstrate to the world that this is not a war against the
- Iraqi people. I don't know how long we will continue to do
- that. I don't know what the limits of American tolerance would
- be before the rules of the game change. If he starts using
- chemical weapons and kills large numbers of innocent people,
- I'm not certain I'd be willing to sit back and say we're the
- guys with the white hats.
- </p>
- <p> Q. The stakes in this conflict are pretty high.
- </p>
- <p> A. Higher than in any conflict since World War II. But we're
- not going to lose. The only question is what we have to do to
- win.
- </p>
-
- </body></article>
- </text>
-
-