"Reagan's Rhodesian Expeditionary Force"

To his machismo-minded hard core, Ronald Reagan's occasionally bellicose campaign utterances are simply long overdue flexings of America's muscle. But last week a remark that he would be willing to send U.S. troops to Rhodesia exploded like a tripped-over land mine. By week's end the candidate was in full retreat.

The gaffe came in response to a question during a Sacramento Press Club appearance. After a potshot at Henry Kissinger for siding with black Rhodesians against Ian Smith's minority white regime, Reagan suggested that the U.S. and Britain should instead serve as "mediators" in the dispute. "How would we do that?" he was asked. "With an occupation force, with military troops, with observers or what?" Replied Reagan: "This is one that I think you would have to be completely involved with the Rhodesian government to find out if that [a peace-keeping force] would be necessary." Then: "Whether it would be enough to have simply the show of strength, the promise that we would [supply troops], or whether you would have to go in with occupational forces or not, I don't know. But in the interest of peace and avoiding bloodshed, and to achieve democratic majority rule, I think it would be worth this--for us to do it." In short, if Smith asks, he gets U.S. troops.

"I'll bet there are going to be a lot of questions on that," Reagan told grimacing aides hustling him off to the bunkers to await the fallout. He won his bet. Screeched a San Francisco Chronicle headline: REAGAN WOULD SEND GI'S TO AVERT RHODESIA WAR. Hastily, the candidate began to backtrack: "I made the mistake of trying to answer hypothetical questions with hypothetical answers." When that did not float very high, Reagan began to pass off his suggestion as in keeping with current U.S. policy: "The same thing we've been doing in the Middle East." Then he became even further mired in his own rhetoric by criticizing U.S. failure to offer "our services" in Cyprus and Lebanon until it was too late. Would he have sent troops to Cyprus and Lebanon? Replied Reagan angrily: "I didn't say that."

Even Reagan conceded he had been placed in a "rather warlike position." No one thought that the incident would cost him his expected victory in this week's California primary. But between now and the Republican Convention as Reagan and President Ford intensify their courtship of uncommitted delegates, Reagan's performance may indeed prove costly. What is already being snidely referred to as "Reagan's Rhodesian Expeditionary Force" is the sort of blunder that is not likely to persuade delegates that Reagan is a candidate who can succeed next November.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.