Susan Jordan got the bad news the same way millions of Americans did: on the tube from Geneva and in the gloom engraved on Secretary of State James Baker’s face. Watching and waiting from her home in Stroud Township, Pa., she had permitted herself the hope that Baker and Tariq Aziz might somehow resolve the Kuwait crisis-that they would emerge from their meeting with a plan that would bring her son Samuel, a 21-year-old Marine, home from Saudi Arabia. Her hopes began to fade as she watched Baker describe his encounter with the Iraqi Foreign minister in deeply pessimistic terms. They vanished when Bake said Tariq Aziz refused to accept George Bush’s letter to Saddam Hussein. That’s it, she thought; war is inevitable now. And as she had so many times before, Jordan began to calculate the frightful costs of America’s involvement in the Persian Gulf aware as never before that her son might soon be one of them.
Americans everywhere were steeling themselves for war in the Persian Gulf last week. There was no jingoism and no war fever, and there was precious little recognition that the notion of Pax Americana, so easily discarded in the aftermath of Vietnam, was being dusted off and updated for a dangerous new era. There was only Bush and Saddam Hussein, two powerful, stubborn men leading their countrymen to the brink of war-and 370,000 young Americans now hunkered down along the Persian Gulf, waiting to launch an attack that would surely bring unimaginable destruction to the ancient lands of the Middle East. As the clock ticked down the last few hours to K (for Kuwait) Day, a reluctant and anxious nation seemed ready to pay the price of stopping Saddam Hussein. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows that 62 percent of the U.S. public now supports the use of force if Iraq refuses to withdraw from Kuwait. But the same poll also shows that half of those supporting the military option have reservations about it and that 48 percent of the national sample want Bush to wait longer before attacking Iraq.
The root questions about Bush’s policy in the gulf crisis-why there? why now? why us?-echoed across America all week long. They were the pivotal issues in an emotional debate in Congress that ultimately gave Bush a de facto declaration of war. By 67 votes in the House and 5 votes in the Senate, Congress granted Bush the authority to use force in the Persian Gulf, despite vehement arguments from Democrats that the U.N. embargo against Iraq should be allowed more time to work. Although the White House was forced to lobby hard, there was little doubt about the outcome. Congress, preoccupied with the deficit and the fall elections, had waited too long to grapple with this most critical of issues. As a result, members of both houses were forced to recognize that a defeat for Bush within days of the U.N. deadline for Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait would have devastating consequences not only for U.S. policy in the gulf, but for the international coalition against Saddam Hussein as well.
At the weekend, the last hope of avoiding war seemed to rest on U.N. Secretary-General Javier Perez de CueIlar’s eleventh-hour mission to Baghdad (page 20). But the finality of the Baker-Aziz breakdown, followed by the congressional vote and Bush’s repeated warnings to Iraq on Saturday afternoon, had touched off something approaching a national war scare. Stocks tumbled-the Dow Jones industrial average lost nearly 65 points for the week-and investors poured a record $16.4 billion into safe-haven money-market funds. Commodity traders prepared for a shutdown of the U.S. spot oil market in the event of panicky price fluctuations. Rumors of sudden gasoline price increases swept Rapid City, S.D., and the U.S. arm of British Petroleum prepared thousands of OUT OF GAS signs for its stations. Some firms restricted overseas travel by their employees and major airlines were drawing up plans for the emergency us? of their jumbo jets by the military.
The Justice Department, the FBI and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service acted to avert possible terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, and the State Department advised U.S. citizens to leave certain Middle Eastern nations, including Israel. The INS prepared to photograph and fingerprint all foreign visitors entering the United States on Iraqi or Kuwaiti passports. An FBI effort to interview a sample of Arab-Americans, presumably to detect terrorist conspiracies, set off outrage among the Arab-American communities in California and Michigan. FBI officials argued that the inquiries were legal and merely precautionary. But leaders of U.S. Arab and Muslim groups charged that the bureau’s tactics were in themselves discriminatory and that they posed the risk of inflaming a vigilante mood against Arab-Americans. “People have called and said, ‘If one person loses his life in the gulf crisis, you’re dead’,” said Yousef Salem, a spokesman for the United Muslims of America.
War jitters swept college campuses and stoked the smoldering embers of the U.S. peace movement. In Washington, demonstrators were hauled away by police after shouting “No blood for oil!” and “No war for Bush!” during a speech by Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia. The fact that Nunn, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is a leading proponent of the go-slow approach in the gulf seemed to make no difference. Vietnam vet Ron Kovic, author of “Born on the Fourth of July,” took part in a Los Angeles peace demonstration that led to fistfights. Antiwar organizations planned demonstrations in Washington, and leading labor and religious groups opposed Bush’s gulf policy with newspaper ads. The talk on campus was how to avoid active duty with the military (though the draft was abolished in 1973) and some students were said to be contemplating emigration to Canada. Protesters at Wayne State University in Detroit even revived the old chant “Hell no, we won’t go!"-although it was less than clear that anyone had asked them to.
Veterans of the peace movement think public support for the use of force in the gulf is shallow and very fragile. There can be no doubt, from Newsweek’S polling and interviewing last week, that millions of Americans are still unsure of the national purpose and deeply frightened by the threat of war. “It scares me,” said Rob Buist, 27, of Oakland, Calif. “I can’t see one life wasted for this war.” Vietnam vet Jonathan Graham of Clarinda, Iowa, resented the idea of a war for cheaper oil and said he didn’t “understand what the United States is doing anymore.” Others, like former Iraqi hostage Eugene Hughes of Albuquerque, N.M., said, “Most of the people I talk to say ‘Let’s go in and get it over with’.” Barbara Lyons of Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., said her chapter of Operation Homefront, a support group for families with relatives on active duty in the Middle East, reacted with “total fear and anger” to the breakdown of the Baker-Aziz talks. Lyons, whose son James is a Marine, said she is reluctantly backing the president. “It’s what my kid chose to do,” she said. “My kid is backing [Bush], and I’m backing my kid.”
The nation’s doubts were clearly portrayed during last week’s congressional de bate. Scheduled by the leaders of both houses, the event itself was darkly historic-arguably the bluntest, most open debate on the issues of peace and war since World War II. Democrats, building on Nunn’s credibility in military affairs, pushed a resolution that urged continued reliance on diplomacy and the U.N. economic sanctions against Iraq. Warning there was little assurance that a war with Iraq would be the short, low-casualty adventure that many predict, Nunn said it was still “reasonable” to believe that sanctions would force Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. “It should not be a war in which Americans do the fighting and dying while those who benefit from our effort provide token help and urge us on,” said Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. “How many young Americans will die? … And the truly haunting question will be: did they die unnecessarily? For if we go to war now, no one will ever know if the sanctions would have worked . . . "
The administration won, in the end, with ample bipartisan support in the House and 10 Democratic votes in the Senate. One of the defecting Democrats, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, conceded that it was “no easy thing” to cast a vote that could lead to war. But, Lieberman argued, “our final, best chance for a truly peaceful end to this crisis … is to send a clear and unequivocal message to Saddam Hussein that the American Congress and the American people stand shoulder to shoulder with our president at this critical moment of confrontation.” In the House, Democratic James Bilbray of Nevada put the same case more strongly. Denying Bush the military option could actually cause war, Bilbray said, adding that “our only hope is that by giving the president the right to use force, he will not have to use that force.”
That paradox-the essence of U.S. defense strategy over the past 45 years-has never been accepted by many Americans, and it may prove to be mistaken in the Persian Gulf. But Bush and Congress were gambling that what had worked in the past would work once again-and an anxious nation knew the die had been cast.
Photo: President Bush after Baker and Aziz failed to reach an agreement, in Virginia friends and families bid loved ones a tearful farewell
Photo: A protester outside the White House
Photo: In the Saudi desert, American troops go through maneuvers in preparation for all-out war against Iraq
As the expectation of war grows, so does support for U.S. military action-but half those who support combat admit they have reservations. Most Americans know-or know of-someone mobilized for gulf service.
Current 8/10/90 Percent saying yes 62% 42%
49% Feel strongly 40% Have some reservations 9% Have a lot of reservations
Current 1/4 8/10/90 Very likely 66% 50% 29% Somewhat likely 24% 32% 45% Not too likely 4% 11% 17% Not at all likely 3% 4% 5%
60% Personal friend/relative 12% Relative of a friend
For this NEWSWEEK Poll, The Gallup Organization interviewed a national sample of 751 adults by telephone Jan. 10-11. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. Some “Don’t Know” and other responses not shown. The NEWSWEEK Poll c. 1991 by NEWSWEEK, Inc.
