Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, February 23, 1991 TAG: 9102250268
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The Soviet peace proposal, accepted by Iraq on Thursday, does not meet all the requirements that the United States and its allies have listed. So President Bush has issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein: Begin unconditional withdrawal by noon today - or else.
The "or else" is, of course, a massive, bloody ground offensive. Yet, as Bush should recall, ultimatums have tended not to be successful. The aim seems to be, in effect, to make Saddam say "no" to peace. A "yes" answer, even conditioned, is inconvenient.
But the relevant question isn't simply whether the Soviet peace plan is acceptable. Important, too, is whether further negotiation could make it so. Until that answer is clearer, America at the least should hold off launching the land battle.
The concessions made so far aren't insignificant. Most important: Saddam Hussein has agreed to withdraw from Kuwait. That's what this war, ostensibly, has been fought about.
In addition, some of the conditions Saddam previously had linked to withdrawal, such as an international conference or Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, have been dropped.
There has been progress, in other words, with promise of more to come.
President Bush was right not to accept the offer as it stands. It includes the condition, for example, that economic sanctions be lifted when only two-thirds of Iraq's troops have left Kuwait. Sanctions should not be lifted even after the withdrawal is complete. They should remain in place until it's clear Saddam is in no position to do again what he did last August.
It's hard for Bush to swallow any settlement that prevents his forces from completely destroying Iraq's army and killing or capturing Saddam. Bush is correct to insist that the war end decisively, with Saddam defanged. He's right to demand strong terms.
The terms should be considered, though, in a broad context of costs and consequences. Saving face must be weighed against saving lives. Military solutions can be messy, too.
Saddam will have been defeated and his aggression reversed in any case, even if the withdrawal is negotiated. The allies already have destroyed much of his army and arsenals. If war doesn't completely wipe out Iraq's offensive military capability, the international community can take steps to ensure that it is reduced or kept in check in the war's aftermath.
On the other hand, a ground war that achieves the same result as a negotiated settlement - Iraq's ouster from Kuwait - wouldn't necessarily rid Iraq or the world of Saddam.
If he retreats, does Bush propose to chase him into Baghdad and hunt him down? What would a house-to-house war in the Iraqi capital be like? Who among our coalition partners would follow us? How would the Arab world react? And what then: a long-term U.S. military occupation of Iraq and imposition of a puppet government?
There should be no rush to a ground war, notwithstanding soldiers' understandable impatience. The fatally effective air war continues. Casualties already include probably tens of thousands of Iraqis whose principal crime is having Saddam for a tyrant. The toll on the allied side has been minimal.
With tens of thousands more lives hanging in the balance, some of them American, moving from successful siege to uncertain storm would be questionable in any case. It's especially so now that Saddam shows signs of recognizing defeat, and while a decent chance of a negotiated pullout remains.
Every night, Iraq's army is further enfeebled and more of its soldiers suffer and die under the raining bombs. As with the embargo that should have been afforded a chance to work, time is on the allies' side. So is the stronger negotiating position.
President Bush presses for victory. Maybe it's within reach.
by CNB