Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, March 17, 1991 TAG: 9103190388
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: B-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Alan Sorensen/ Editorial Page Editor
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
So what if I supported continued economic sanctions against Iraq, rather than the resort to war? So what if glory on the battlefield seems to have vindicated President Bush's determination to fight?
Does that mean I should run for cover?
I'm as happy as anyone that the Persian Gulf conflict was quickly decisive, with allied casualties kept, in the words of one U.S. official, "miraculously low." I'm glad Americans are patriotic. We should be.
I'm as impressed as the next person by how extraordinarily competent Bush's leadership and our military forces and weapons proved. I'm proud of the effort made to spare civilian life. I'm satisfied Kuwait's liberation was a just cause.
True, military analysts estimate more than 100,000 Iraqi military casualties. One can only wonder how many would have been suffered had they actually fought back. Meantime, the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure will add to the civilian toll.
But Saddam Hussein started this war. And now he has been pried from Kuwait by an international coalition sanctioned by the United Nations. Iraq's ambition to gain a stranglehold over oil supplies and become a nuclear power has been thwarted. Would-be aggressors elsewhere are served notice.
I'm gratified about all of this. I also continue to believe that a similar result, if it could have been achieved without warfare, would have produced a better precedent for peace and collective security than a superpower military defeat of an isolated Third World despot. Sanctions, unfortunately, weren't given a chance.
But enough about might-have-beens. That comes across as defensive. Let's consider, instead, how to avoid future wars.
As the latest one makes plain, the end of the Cold War has not ushered in the end either of history or of conflict. The breaching of the Berlin Wall and the hoped-for unification of Western Europe are historic, to say the least. In the past two centuries, large nation-states came together by a variety of means, often involving war. But now the world may be on the verge, at least in many places, of stormy disintegration.
Movements demanding greater autonomy or independence press central authorities in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, India and now Iraq, among other nations. Bitter ethnic feuds and religious fanaticism abound. The gap between haves and have-nots is growing. Most deep-rooted disputes don't lend themselves to as ready a resolution as did Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Through a mine field of fragmenting states, regional wars and proliferating weaponry, no clear and safe path is discernible. But a few guideposts appear:
Appeasement doesn't work. The Reagan and Bush administrations for years resisted calls for sanctions against Iraq, helping Saddam get away with murder and perhaps giving him the impression he'd be allowed to keep Kuwait. If we want to avoid similar wars, we can't afford the old tilting toward current dictators of choice. We can't afford to ignore, until it's too late, tyrants' regional threats and abuse of human rights.
Arms control is imperative. Bush makes sounds about stemming the flow of sophisticated weapons into unstable regions. But he has proposed selling $33 billion in new weapons this year, two-thirds of them in the Middle East. There will be much demand for equipment that achieved such spectacular results in the Gulf War. Yet Iraq's imported arsenal is what started the trouble in the first place. Can't we learn that arms last longer than alliances, that arms transfers reduce rather than enhance security?
Democracy pacifies. The Gulf War was fought to restore Kuwait's emir, not to introduce democracy. Great powers, the United States included, have long felt comfortable dealing with friendly despots. But the spread of democracy ought to be a paramount foreign-policy goal. Democracies can vent factional grievances without violence. They rarely fight each other.
Don't overreach. To promote its good influence abroad, America must shore up its strength at home. Bush acknowledges he feels more comfortable with foreign than with domestic policy. But if we try to police the world without investing more, educating better, and becoming more economically competitive as a society, we'll end up like the Soviets, who tried to exert superpower influence by military might alone. Spreading trade and prosperity is one of the best ways to discourage war.
Address root causes. Big disparities in wealth and a simmering sense of humiliation and hopelessness are notable causes of war. In the Middle East, Arab masses must be given more of a stake in stability, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be resolved if there is to be a prospect of enduring peace. The Bush administration should press its allies to recognize these realities.
All this assumes, of course, that we want to avoid war - even successful ones. But do we? "War survives on Earth simply because so many people enjoy it," wrote H.L. Mencken. "To at least nine people out of 10, it is the supreme circus of circuses."
This past one sure was a doozy, and so easy. Such a clear result against so clearly evil a foe, with so few deaths on our side. And the people back home don't even have to conserve energy or pay a war tax. Why not do it again, soon?
So many wars have been fought to bring justice and tranquility, yet tomorrow's peace always seems elusive. Four thousand years ago, the soldiers of Elam plundered and crushed Ur, the grand walled city of Mesopotamia. Why? I don't know. I'm sure the reasons seemed compelling at the time.
I don't know, either, when wars will end. I do know that arms sales and appeasement have resumed, even as the dead are buried. I know the Gulf War, though executed superbly, bravely and with a righteous end, has not left me exultant.
Neither has it left me repentant. A little defensive, maybe. But not repentant.
by CNB