Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, April 17, 1991 TAG: 9104170635
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: EVENING
SOURCE: TOM RAUM ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
For weeks, the president vowed repeatedly he would not get involved in Iraq's internal strife. He said he was determined that Iraq not become "another Vietnam-style quagmire."
In the end, however, the pressure of world opinion, the daily reports of the desperate plight of the Kurdish refugees and the appeals for action from members of Congress gave Bush little choice but to act.
The decision to make a new commitment to U.S. forces in Iraq represents a 180-degree turn in U.S. policy.
It also will frustrate the president's goal of getting virtually all American forces home from the Persian Gulf region by the Fourth of July.
And while no one expects the new military commitment to evolve into a long-term war of attrition like Vietnam, the decision does tarnish the glory of the nation's dramatic victory in the six-week air and land war that drove Saddam's forces from Kuwait.
While Bush had six months to carefully plan for the war against Iraq, neither he nor his top strategists spent much time in preparing for the "peace" that followed.
Thus, U.S. policy at this point remains murky and ambiguous.
It was a frustrated Bush who went before a national television audience on Tuesday night and confessed to a whimsical wish that some "broker" would appear to barter a deal by which Saddam could be exiled to a third nation.
"The most important thing . . . is to get Saddam Hussein out of there," he said. "We want him out of there so badly."
Would he go along with former President Nixon's suggestion that the CIA arrange Saddam's assassination? That question caused Bush some pause. "I think that's unacceptable," the onetime CIA chief said finally.
Bush clearly had difficulty answering a question on whether his new decision to put U.S. troops back into Iraq might lead the nation into a long-term entanglement.
His fumbling answer: "Well, I'm positive that in my own mind - put it this way. In my own mind, my judgment is - and I think it's the collective judgment of the people that figured the war out pretty well - is that he won't risk this. And Saddam Hussein is not going to want to re-engage in that nature. So, we'll have to see."
Bush was less than self-assured about the nature of the U.S. commitment.
At another point, he said: "I hope we're not talking about a long-term effort."
In other words: basically, no one knows how long or how many U.S. troops will have to remain in northern Iraq to protect Kurdish refugees.
"I think rather small numbers," Bush said.
White House press secretary Marlin Fitzwater, pressed later about the U.S. commitment, first protested, "I don't know, I don't know." Finally, he suggested, "I would think it would take thousands of people."
The decision to occupy northern Iraq to guarantee a safe haven to up to a million displaced Iraqi Kurds is no easy task.
Already, administration officials had said the relief effort amounted to the largest airlift ever. Bush called it "the largest U.S. relief effort mounted in modern military history."
"The scale of this effort is truly unprecedented, yet the fact remains that the scale of the problem is even greater," he said Tuesday.
Bush called the new initiative "a greatly expanded and more ambitious relief effort."
But, he conceded, "It is an extraordinary difficult logistical problem."
In taking the latest action, the president did not follow the route he had followed every inch of the way in the past: getting the formal approval of the United Nations and the coalition that he had carefully built to fight the Gulf War.
In fact, the action, taken after consultations with the leaders of Turkey, France, Britain and Germany, could seriously strain the coalition, Bush as much as acknowledged.
"It may require . . . a new resolution from the (U.N.) Security Council. And that's a complicated problem, given the fact that some of the members who were steadfastly with us in the coalition might have problems with something of this nature," he conceded.
So, what had been a clear-cut victory has become an uncertain commitment.
And is Saddam any closer to being stripped of power?
"I would think so," Bush said. Then he added: "But I can't prove it."
by CNB