Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, February 20, 1991 TAG: 9102200488
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
That Bush would have rejected Mikhail Gorbachev's latest proposal for ending the war is perhaps understandable. After all, the Soviets are trying to distance themselves from America, restore their prominent role in Middle Eastern affairs, enhance their image among Moslems and placate hard-line communists unhappy over Gorbachev's friendliness with the West.
If the peace initiative works, the Soviets will have exploited the leverage - and benefited on the cheap - from the hard work and sacrifices America has organized and suffered to reverse Iraq's aggression.
The peace plan's logic is to allow Saddam Hussein to save face while withdrawing from Kuwait. The allied coalition's aim is to make Saddam lose face (not to mention his life).
Meanwhile, weather conditions and force readiness are said to be optimal now for the ground war that Bush seems impatient to launch. All this peace proposing must seem to the president an inconvenience and a distraction.
It should not be treated as such. If Saddam accepts the demand that he withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait - whether communicated to him by the Soviets or anyone else, in a few words or sweetened with insubstantial assurances, by ultimatum or in scented stationery - then that is properly the time to let him leave and end this war.
"As far as I'm concerned, there are no negotiations," Bush said Tuesday. But if Saddam agrees to withdraw unconditionally, on what basis can we legitimately press the war? This is supposed to be a U.N. action involving an international coalition with a consensus on aims. Indeed, the three stated goals of U.S. policy are Iraqi withdrawal, restoration of Kuwait's government and stability in the region, notwithstanding Bush's additional preference for Saddam's removal.
Of course everyone would like the dictator to fall. If his pullout is arranged the right way, that's a likely eventuality. Meantime, he can be constrained from taking heavy machinery back to Iraq. The damage already done to his military capacity has diminished any threat to the region for years to come, and the threat could be contained with a continued arms embargo.
Yes, the Soviets are trying to compete for influence in the Middle East. But don't forget: The U.N. Security Council would never have approved the international coalition's use of force against Iraq without Moscow's cooperation. And the Soviets' diplomatic efforts are aimed at achieving the result that the coalition still says, anyway, is its goal.
If a ground war can be avoided, the savings in lives - including American lives - would surely compensate for any political points lost in the diplomatic power game. Nor is it clear that a ground war would win many points: The Arab casualties would increase resentment against America in the Middle East for years to come.
Bush on Tuesday would not share even with congressional leaders his reasons for rejecting Moscow's proposal, which has not been made public. According to House Speaker Thomas Foley, Bush told lawmakers "there were some aspects of it that fell short, but he wasn't going to comment on it any further." That's not the same as calling the plan a "cruel hoax," Bush's description of an earlier proposal by Iraq.
Clearly, there are negotiations going on. It's a big mistake to want them - or to seem to want them - to fail.
by CNB