Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, February 24, 1991                   TAG: 9102250272
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: D-3   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: JAMES J.  KILPATRICK
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

WHEN WAR IS WON, HOW WIN THE PEACE?

It is universally assumed - and the assumption seems sound - that the allied coalition will "win" the war. Not so clear is what we will have won, or at what price.

Why are we there? Reflect upon the reasons the people have been given:

To demonstrate to the world that naked aggression will not go unpunished.

To liberate Kuwait and to restore its legitimate government.

To protect a vital national interest in access to Middle Eastern oil at a reasonable price.

To carry out a mandate of the United Nations, expressed in Resolution 678, authorizing member states to use "all necessary means" to achieve the unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

To set in motion a process that will lead to what the president calls a New World Order in the area.

These are the ostensible reasons, some lofty and some not. Western nations have not consistently leaped to the punishment of aggression and we have lately engaged in a little aggression ourselves. Restoration of the emir of Kuwait to his dynastic throne is not worth a drop of American blood.

But underlying these ostensible reasons was another argument, which proved crucial during the somber debate that occupied Congress in early January: Saddam could not be left free to terrorize the Middle East with nuclear weapons.

For the sake of appearances, the United States must maintain a solemn pretense that we act merely as an obedient member of the United Nations. The removal of Saddam Hussein never has been an announced aim of the United Nations.

It had better not become openly an aim of the allied coalition either. To capture the tyrant involves the invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq itself. Arab members of the coalition would not agree to any such action. An extension of the war would multiply the already huge costs.

Moreover, we have reason to believe that Iraq's capacity for developing nuclear weapons has been greatly damaged if not altogether nullified. It is entirely plausible that a defeated Saddam Hussein, bearing sole responsibility for the disaster he has inflicted upon his people, could not long survive their resentment.

Eventually, for good or ill, this war will end. Iraq will still be there. The jealousies and passions that have roiled the gulf for 10,000 years will not have been assuaged.

Do we have any plan for victory? Under a New World Order, how do we reach agreement on the rights of Israelis and the needs of the Palestinians? What new relationships do we envision with Syria, with Jordan, with Iran? Once Kuwait is liberated, what American presence is to remain? For how long? Is the embargo against Iraq to be lifted? Under what conditions?

These deeply troubling questions have yet to be thoughtfully addressed. George Bush has demonstrated great skill in welding together the allied coalition. As leader of the Free World, he soon will face an equally difficult task. Having won the war, he must not lose the peace. Universal Press Syndicate