We’re there because of oil. We import more than 50 percent of our oil. We’re there to secure the supply. Otherwise, it would be just another Arab fight in the desert. Let’s call a spade a spade. The reason we’re there is oil.
As far as going any farther, no. Let the embargo work. I’m not too keen about starting wars. You just sweat ’em. Worldwide, we’re perceived as the most powerful nation in the world, but we can’t even get our deficit under control. It’s going to get worse, the biggest in history. It easily could be $400 billion two years from now. I see an opportunity for others to help with our problems. We should negotiate a price with the Saudis below $21 a barrel–with the Saudis and others whose fields are secured by our action. The difference between that and the price of OPEC crude should be a differential that goes to pay for the cost of the operation.
The Japanese said they were going to send doctors and nurses. They got 10 volunteers. They were going to send four-wheel-drive vehicles, but they didn’t want to send their ships, apparently for fear they would be blown up. Japan promised $4 billion, but I haven’t seen any evidence of them writing checks. We have to bring them to the table and tell them what the deal is. Otherwise, they’ll get to ride along free. The first estimate we heard was that this would cost $18 billion the first year. Now it’s $30 billion.
However it’s settled, we will maintain a presence there in the future. We’ve been invited in, and we’re going to stay.
Patricia Hale WIFE OF HOSTAGE EDWARD HALE
At first, we needed to go in as a defensive force. That’s what it should be. Going on the offensive is a bit premature. This is supposed to be a multinational force. It’s gotten so singlesided, 80 percent American. It’s ceasing from being a multinational force very quickly. We keep hearing that we’re going on the offensive. We should give the sanctions a chance to work.
Congress should be playing a much more active role. It’s too much power for one person. I want George Bush to respect the Constitution, and I want the senators and congressmen to stop evading their constitutional responsibilities. Congress is supposed to make the determination of when we go to war. I realize that presidents have committed troops in so-called police actions. But if there’s potential for extreme loss of life, Congress should have a say in it.
Other countries should get more of their troops there. I don’t think the United States ought to be the watchdog for the world. I’ve heard so many say that it affects the world economy. Well, proportionally, only about 12 to 15 percent of our imports come from there, compared to 90 percent for the Japanese. I realize they are constitutionally forbidden to go on the offensive, but why aren’t they helping in other ways? It’s time for the United States to say, Hey, why should our young men be sacrificed for the world economy?
David Hackworth ARMY COL. (RET.), AUTHOR
What in the hell are we doing in the gulf? What is our country going to gain from it? We never learn. Wars like the gulf, like Vietnam, like Korea, are damned easy to get into, hard to get out of, and the pain and the hurt never go away.
With modern wars, we’re talking about smart bombs and all of the electronic gadgetry scientists have produced. If you get into a shooting war, no one wins because the devastation is so complete. If you don’t go to a shooting war, you go to a stalemate. You go broke financially. It’s costing us $60 million a day in the gulf.
I think we should do as Lyndon Johnson should have done in 1966: declare victory. If we say, “We’ve employed our forces in the gulf. They’ve stabilized the situation. They’ve checkmated Saddam Hussein. We’re turning the war on the ground over to our Arab allies, and we will leave our Navy to continue blockading and our Air Force to participate as a deterrent force. But no people will die on the ground.” If Lyndon Johnson had done that in ‘66, he’d probably still be president.
Being a soldier, I’m very much like George Patton. I’m a historian. The only thing I can see that’s different is that instead of bows and arrows, now the arrow’s a missile. We’re so sophisticated now in terms of weapons, but man himself, the George Bushes of this world, have got to solve everything by the big stick. They’ve got to solve things with rocks, except today the rocks are nuclear.
There’s another way of resolving conflict. That way is with the blockade and trade embargoes. No nation can subsist without having a friend getting them some lamb and some couscous. It wouldn’t matter to me if it took a year. This is the first crisis since the end of the cold war. If we can resolve this without conflict, we’re going to set a standard for future crises. It’s a golden opportunity to change our way of operating.
The root of war is economics, and the root of this thing is economic, even though George Bush and his gang are so maladroit, they can’t even give it a handle. One day it’s about oil. One day it’s about naked aggression. Yesterday it was about jobs for the boys.
The last war we won was when Franklin Delano Roosevelt went in front of Congress and gave that wonderful speech about Pearl Harbor. He asked for a declaration of war. Now that’s the last war we’ve won. Truman backed us into Korea. LBJ backed us into Vietnam. But we haven’t won a war since, because we have not had the commitment of our nation, the nation who gives up its sons. There ain’t no Neil Bushes out there. There ain’t no Billy Bakers out there in the desert. Who’s paying the price? The people. So they should be able to decide if we’re going to have a war.
Johanna Druen STUDENT, UNIVERSITY OF EVANSVILLE
I’ve seen how hard this is on family members. I approve of our involvement. A lot of people, myself included, are afraid this will turn into another Vietnam, but we’re helping to further freedom, which is what our country is founded on.
A lot of people are frustrated. It seems like nothing is going to happen. I think there will be a war and that it will end quickly. In the beginning, the United States was trying to be rational, but Saddam Hussein is not rational. My brother [Ensign Thomas Druen] said all they’re doing over there is waiting to be shot at. People want to see their loved ones for the holidays.
On campus, at first people were really scared. But people are now reaching out to the soldiers. We want to do what we can. People are nervous and scared that it’s our generation’s turn to be involved in a war and this might be it. If it continues, how will it affect us?
Jesse Ventura MAYOR, BROOKLYN PARK, MINN.
Emotionally, I was for sending troops at the beginning. But as time has gone on–and I’ve learned more–I’m for withdrawal.
What happened to Kuwait was a tragedy, but my heart is telling me as a Vietnam vet that we don’t need 50,000 of our young men to die over there. I’m afraid it’s a tragedy waiting to happen. And I wonder if Big Business and Big Oil aren’t behind it. OPEC is holding the world hostage. Let’s explore oil opportunities elsewhere. It’s an atrocity that our young men should die to protect oil barons. We have internal problems that are just as important as the problems in Kuwait.
Modesto Maidique FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
The president has done an excellent job of handling the situation. I think that by increasing the deployment further he is sending a peaceful but very determined message that America will not stand for the invasion of an ally, and particularly when that ally has significant strategic importance.
Ideally, I would like to see a coup inside Iraq by people who recognize that you can’t go head to head with the world and work for the establishment of a more moderate government. I’m fundamentally an optimist, but given my own experience as a Cuban-American–I have not seen Castro retreat an inch and I think Saddam is a similar kind of person. These people are surrounded by sycophants. These are not people like you and me. For them, it’s my way or no way.
Soon we will either have to attack or go away. Where the president could still do a lot better is in explaining to people why he is doing this. There are people who do the wrong thing but have a marvelous ability for explaining. Bush has done the right thing but hasn’t been as effective in communicating it to the people.
Charles Peters EDITOR, THE WASHINGTON MONTHLY
The great error in Vietnam was the introduction of ground troops in 1966; that’s what led to massive slaughter. I think we should continue the embargo, sell oil from the reserves, and if necessary have gas rationing. We would avoid economic harm and show Saddam that he couldn’t get the goodies he wanted, which is an increase in oil prices.
There was a nonbloody way of handling the whole problem, and I wish they had taken it. But Bush is so anxious to avoid being called a wimp. If we had the embargo, backed by a Navy blockade, with capabilities for an air attack if the Iraqis invaded Saudi Arabia, that would be OK. But any ground troops in the region for the purpose of either attack or defense is insane.
The cowards have been the politicians and the press for not speaking up. I wondered where my colleagues were in August. There is so little dissent, and Congress has been petrified. It’s awful late, but at least let’s wake up now.
Henry Cisneros FORMER MAYOR, SAN ANTONIO
My personal hopes are for a peaceful settlement, even if it requires enforcement by long-term military force. By that, I mean a long-term presence to enforce a Korean-style line of demarcation with a U.N. force contributing. I sincerely hope this doesn’t result in armed conflict that would cost tens of thousands of [iv-es. We should have great reluctance about initiating conflict in the present situation. Enough discussions are going on among the Arab nations, enough feelers are going out, that any unilateral initiative on our part would be difficult to justify today, certainly not without consulting Congress.
I don’t think people appreciate what a war would really mean: thousands of body bags being unloaded at Dover. The president and military leaders need to think about that now and not after it begins. Whether we’re talking about a swift victory or a long, drawn-out matter, the price is going to be high. I understand our desire to get Saddam out of Kuwait. But a significant military presence–as expensive as that might be–is preferable to thousands of lives being lost. We need a face-saving out.
What we haven’t come to terms with is the tens of thousands of deaths–not only military deaths but civilian deaths, women and children. I don’t know that the world is going to stand by quietly as the full tonnage of bombardment flattens Iraqi cities. The killing power we have available ought to restrict the loss of life on our side. But we will have to live a long time with the loss of life there, especially civilian life. Saddam is a bad man. The women and children of Iraq are not bad people. They didn’t cause this.
We can pulverize their cities. With our air superiority, their Air Force would be gone within two days, before we send the first troops in. But when the first photos of those broken bodies and pulverized cities come back home, we will wonder whether we waited long enough, whether we squeezed them long enough. If this were a hot process, with decisions being made impetuously, in the heat of conflict, it would be one thing. But launching an assault from a cold start would be a clearly deliberate decision on our part to unleash all that killing power.
Michael Dukakis GOVERNOR, MASSACHUSETTS
One of the problems is that we’ve been in bed with this guy for 10 years. It’s difficult to explain why someone whom you’ve been supporting and “tilting toward” and providing intelligence to has suddenly become a Hitler. Having said that, what the president did initially was absolutely right. We cannot permit dictators like Saddam to commit the unprovoked aggression he did against anybody. It has been very crucial to the success of this effort that it be genuinely international with strong support from the U.N., the Soviet Union and many Arab nations. But as Senator Nunn said, the original purpose was to stop further aggression against Saudi Arabia and to impose an international boycott, which over time would force him out of Kuwait. And I think that was exactly the right thing to do. In fact, I would have added a further condition that the boycott not be lifted unless he reaffirmed his commitment to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and agreed to be a party to the new agreement on chemical warfare which would require him and other countries involved to renounce the use of chemical weapons and destroy their chemical stock.
The problem is that all of a sudden the mission has changed. And that’s why there’s so much confusion and unhappiness, not only within the international community, but here in the United States. I think it was Pat Moynihan who said if there ever was a place where you could make a boycott work, it was Iraq. But sanctions aren’t going to work in a month and a half. Everybody in this country is concerned about the commitment of a half-million troops, which is now five times in American forces what the entire international community has committed so far.
Bishop H. H. Brookins A.M.E. CHURCH, WASHINGTON D.C.
There’s a Scripture that says, “When the bugle gives an uncertain sound, how can they rise to battle?” Until now the bugle has been giving an uncertain sound, and neither the American people nor the soldiers in the gulf can feel overly enthusiastic about rising to battle.
I am disappointed that if war is the only option left, why hasn’t President Bush given the American people a clear message about why we are there? Each reason is different, and the American people are beginning to lose confidence in Bush because he keeps rattling his sabers but won’t say why we are going to war. Even though he is commander in chief, given the history of Vietnam and Korea, Congress has a moral responsibility to be engaged in the decision. If Saddam Hussein does not precipitate a move out of Kuwait, we have no option but to remove him. But the time element is crucial. Anything that will prevent hostilities is worth doing. To move rapidly is simply to bankrupt the integrity of our country.
We are concerned about the disproportionate number of minorities being sent to the front line. Particularly in light of the president’s veto of the civil-rights bill. To have the same commander in chief demand that our soldiers die for our country when he does not guarantee the protection of their civil rights at home is extraordinarily disappointing. It is a constant worry among my parishioners. It is a constant question.
Fighting for Kuwait is not worth tens of thousands of lives. Bush should more clearly define why we are so far away from home. Oil is not sufficient. He should justify this war on moral grounds and explain why our national security is at stake. Once that is clear, he has the right to prepare the American people for war. Right now, it is ambiguous why we are there. On one hand, it’s oil and on the other it’s to destroy a dictator. But the dictator has always been there.
Joseph Sobran COLUMNIST, NATIONAL REVIEW
It seems so aimless, just a reflex, to respond to any foreign provocation with what they call the military option. It used to be called war.
We used to talk about the Monroe Doctrine. That was confined to this hemisphere. Now apparently any misbehavior anywhere is our business. We just can’t go around doing that. First of all, we’d be overextended. Second, I don’t think these people appreciate what a war is. Bush ought to know by now.
To me it’s an astounding thing that we react so instantly by thinking that we’ve got to intervene militarily this way. It’s not particularly our fight. It defeats its own announced goals in a sense, in that it’s already driven the oil price higher than Saddam Hussein could have driven it, no matter what he did.
There’s this diabolization of the guy, and Lord knows he’s a brutal s.o.b., but good God, there are enough of those around. We don’t have to kill them all, do we? It just strikes me as so grotesque. I keep rubbing my eyes at this thing. I’m afraid conservatives have gotten in the habit too much of reacting militarily. At the National Review, I’m the odd man out. Everybody else there thinks we should have war, and that its purpose should be not just to free Kuwait, but to get rid of Saddam Hussein or at least cripple him. I can’t see that. I don’t think they appreciate what it’s likely to cost us.
President Bush just seems so embarrassing. He’s goofed up so many other things, I think people are reluctant to follow him into battle. What Bush ought to do is insist on a declaration of war and then try not to get it. Then throw up his hands and say “Well, I tried.” Publicly, curse Congress and privately, bless them. That’s what I’d do if I were in his shoes and I realized what a terrible mistake I’d made. We keep hearing about prestige, but I just don’t want to see any American boys die over there for no well-defined reason.
Father Andrew Greeley NOVELIST, CHICAGO
I can’t imagine any reasons for fighting that are good. To protect Saudi Arabia, I suppose, but that doesn’t seem to be the reason. We’ve maintained an army in Europe for 45 years. I don’t know why we can’t maintain an embargo against Saddam Hussein for a couple of years. I don’t know why it has to be foreclosed so soon. I would hope we continue the embargo indefinitely. My fear is that President Bush has got macho ego involved. I would; like to hear from Bush some awareness of how little support there is in the country for war or how little there’s ever going to be. The American public is not going to support a war in the gulf. He might be able to arrange some provocation that would stir people up for a week or two. Something like the imaginary attack in the Tonkin Gulf. He might be able to phony something like that. Lyndon Johnson phonied the Tonkin Gulf episode, and Bush may try to do the same thing.
John Silber PRESIDENT, BOSTON UNIVERSITY
By his move against Kuwait, Saddam has clearly indicated that he intends to become a dominant figure in controlling the world oil supply. And that is a vital U.S. interest. To leave him in control of oil pricing would be disastrous. Anybody who knows the role of oil in the world economy knows Saddam must be stopped.
It is quite clear that we can’t settle simply for a withdrawal from Kuwait. You can’t go through this multibillion-dollar buildup in the gulf, get his withdrawal from Kuwait, spend another billion dollars bringing all of that equipment and those individuals home, and then leave him in control of his chemical-warfare factories and his nuclear-weapons factories. It would be folly.
I don’t think it has to be a land invasion of Iraq. That would be nonsensical. But I think there has to be a definite removal by air of his factories and his capacity to develop nuclear weapons. And he has to be left in a situation where he may be strong enough to defend himself against Iran. But at the same time, Saddam must be stripped of that level of power that makes him a threat to Saudi Arabia, to Kuwait, to Yemen, to Israel, to Syria, to all of the countries around him. He has to be reduced to a minor power.
Larry Hawkins COMMISSIONER, DADE COUNTY, FLA.
I sure as hell don’t want the gulf situation to turn into another Vietnam. The sooner something is done to end it, the better. Personally, I’d like to turn Iraq into glass, with hig-powered explosives. It almost gas to be done from the air. If we don’t, and they build up a nuclear or chemical capability, we’ve lost.
I was in Vietnam in 1967-68, in the 173rd Airborne Bridge. Every Vietnam vet I have talked to is committed to the precept happen to the troops in the Mideast.
The longer we wait, the Arab alliance becomes weaker, the Palestinian question becomes stronger. You’d better do something while you’ve got world opinion on your side.
Marvin Hier RABBI, LOS ANGELES
If human beings have different sensitivities, if people with arthritis can somehow predict that it is going to rain, if other species get advance notice on impending earthquakes–then Jews are specialists in feeling the presence of a tyrant. It was this sensitivity that prompted Israel to take out Saddam Hussein’s atomic reactor in 1981. The whole world lambasted Israel for its action then. Today, these same nations have sent their own soldiers, prepared to sacrifice their lives to defeat him.
I think the United States should go in. Maybe not tomorrow, but very soon. I’m not suggesting the bombing of civilian targets. I’m against that. But at the same time, neither am I suggesting that we start only a small bonfire so Saddam Hussein gets the idea that this is like Vietnam and he can stick around for years. However great the pain for us now, it will only be greater if we wait three, five, 10 years. Three years from now, the comparison between Saddam Hussein and Hitler will be even more forceful Three years from now, our casualties will be three times as high. Three years from now, Iraq will have nuclear weapons. We must accept the fact that Saddam Hussein can never be converted to democracy. He will always see himself as the successor to the Babylonian king who ransacked Jerusalem.
History is full of sacrifices. If we’ve reaped the benefits of prosperity in the decades following World War II, we should not forget that it did not come easy–that tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers died in order to defeat Nazism. Yes, it is a hard thing to consider that many American men and women could possibly lose their lives in the gulf. But if I were the president, I would say to the families of hostages and soldiers, “Ladies and gentlemen of America, we were going to have to confront Saddam Hussein at some point. Would you want me to postpone the agony and give it to another president?” Sacrifice is the name of the game.
H. T. Smith LAWYER, MIAMI I ’m a Vietnam veteran. I wasn’t drafted. I served four years in ROTC and I volunteered. If America was threatened, at no matter what age I’d be the first to sign up. I spent a year in Vietnam in 1969-70. It amazed me when I got to the front line, the high percentage of black Americans who were doing the toughest and dirtiest work. Now the troops are 30 percent black, and the president is vetoing the civil-rights bill. African-American people bear a disproportionate share of the burden for providing freedom and democracy for people thousands of miles away, and they’re watching their freedom being eroded right here at home. This has a chilling effect on the president’s call for us to rally around the flag.
A lot of these so-called hawks, no one in their family went to war. You’d be surprised at the perspective of people who went to war and watched people die. It was a sobering experience. Saddam Hussein’s Army is battle-tested. When you start fighting an enemy that believes if they are killed they are going to heaven, it’s a frightening kind of thing.
I have mixed emotions about the gulf crisis. The fact that so many Arab nations have sided with the United States-there may be a little bit more to this than seems apparent from a cursory look. On the other hand, in this series of conflicts–Grenada, Panama–maybe we’re not really utilizing all the resources of diplomacy to resolve these things, especially when our vital interests are not being affected. I personally believe this should be debated in Congress. If America needs to be involved in a war, the overwhelming majority of Americans will rally around the flag. Right now, I don’t think the case has been made.
Lynne Randall FEMINIST, WOMEN’S HEALTH CENTER, ATLANTA
I am completely opposed to our being over there. Saudi Arabia is gender-apartheid. I don’t think we would go into South Africa and tell our soldiers to accept racial apartheid just because it’s the host country, but we’re asking our women over there to change their behavior. I’m extremely offended when I see it’s expected that we will accept the incredible sexism rooted in that country.
It’s the ultimate irony: women may lose their lives defending a sexist society. It’s like blacks losing their lives defending South Africa.
Chad Reichwald HIGH-SCHOOL SENIOR, MINNEAPOLIS
I don’t think it should be a long-term problem. It should be taken care of soon. I’m against war, killing people, but obviously Saddam Hussein has his problems. Killing him isn’t a good idea, but taking over or overthrowing him is a good idea. The United States has that power–if we’re going to do it, let’s get it over with.
Every 20 years there’s a war. I don’t like the fact that we are the main power . . . I’ve reached draft age. I’m registering as a conscientious objector and that’s how all my friends are registering. We’re taking people away from their homes for no reason–we don’t need so many people over there. In a way, there was more support at first. People saw gas prices go up and said, “Let’s go in there.” It’s a waste of time to sit over there. It’s a waste of money, time and people.
