TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 091090 / 0910014.000 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1995-02-07 | 5.9 KB | 132 lines

<text id=90TT2368> <title> Sep. 10, 1990: Look Who's Antiwar Now </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990 Sep. 10, 1990 Playing Cat And Mouse </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> THE GULF, Page 27 Look Who's Antiwar Now </hdr> <body> 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"? <list> <item> a) George McGovern <item> b) Jane Fonda <item> c) Ron Kovic <item> d) Patrick J. Buchanan </list> 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. </body> </article> </text>