home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=91TT0731>
- <title>
- Apr. 08, 1991: Schwarzkopf's 100 Hours:Too Few?
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1991
- Apr. 08, 1991 The Simple Life
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- NATION, Page 22
- Schwarzkopf's 100 Hours: Too Few?
- </hdr><body>
- <p> STOPPED SHORT--SCHWARZKOPF. That headline in the hawkish
- Washington Times last week stung President Bush into a
- mercifully brief but nonetheless unfortunate and ironic tiff
- with the nation's newest idol. Unfortunate because the White
- House cast it in terms of who said what to whom when, thus
- obscuring a genuinely important question: Was the cease-fire
- Bush ordered after 100 hours of the ground war premature?
- Ironic, because the White House could easily have won that
- debate.
- </p>
- <p> The spat started when David Frost interviewed for public
- television the top allied commander in the gulf. Schwarzkopf
- said he had recommended that the U.S. keep fighting, since his
- troops could have "made it a battle of annihilation" that, by
- inference, would have finished Saddam's regime. To many
- listeners, it sounded like a man praising his boss's
- magnanimity, but Bush decided he could not afford the impression
- that he had "wimped out," as an aide put it. His advisers put
- out word that the general had raised no objection when Joint
- Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell phoned Schwarzkopf on Feb.
- 27 to tell him the President was about to order hostilities
- stopped.
- </p>
- <p> Which was neither here nor there. Schwarzkopf would have
- made privately to Powell any recommendation that the allies
- keep fighting; when told in effect that he had already been
- overruled, he would of course abide by the decision of the
- Commander in Chief. At week's end the general closed the debate
- with a graceful apology. But that didn't necessarily settle the
- substantive question of whether the U.S. had in fact stopped
- fighting too soon.
- </p>
- <p> The answer almost certainly is no. Doubtless Schwarzkopf's
- troops could have destroyed more of the troops and armor that
- Saddam is using to suppress the revolts that broke out almost
- as soon as the war ended. But that would have meant continuing
- a horrible "turkey shoot" of fleeing Iraqi forces after the war
- had effectively been won. The allies' goals were to drive
- Saddam's forces out of Kuwait and cripple Iraq's offensive
- military capacity. Both had been achieved before the 100 hours
- were up.
- </p>
- <p> Continuing the war would have been seen by the world, with
- reason, as a pointless snuffing out of lives. Critics may argue
- that the same Iraqi soldiers who were spared went on to
- slaughter anti-Saddam rebels. But on balance the decision to
- stop the bloodshed the moment victory was assured was right--and very American.
- </p>
-
- </body></article>
- </text>
-
-