On The Warpath

By Otto Friedrich

"Darn," said President Bush last week to express his indignation about Saddam Hussein's mistreatment of his U.S. hostages. "The American flag is flying over the Kuwait embassy, and our people inside are being starved by a brutal dictator. Do you think I'm concerned about it? You're darn right I am. And what am I going to do about it? Let's just wait and see. Because I have had it with that kind of treatment of Americans."

If that was not exactly the most warlike battle cry ever issued, it was typical of a week of confusing and contradictory signals on whether the U.S. is preparing to launch an armed attack to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait. After Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recommended that 100,000 U.S. troops be added to the 210,000 already deployed along the Persian Gulf, there were widespread rumors and speculation that the offensive would start soon after this week's congressional elections -- or before Christmas, or early in the new year. In contrast, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev declared that any "military solution" was "unacceptable" after his personal envoy, Yevgeni Primakov, returned from a second exploratory mission to Baghdad. There Primakov claimed to find Saddam "more disposed to a political solution," a development invisible to everyone else.

President Bush, campaigning for Republican candidates in California, began the week's verbal barrages by denouncing Iraq's siege of foreign embassies in Kuwait as "unconscionable and inhumane." Then he seemed to escalate. "I am as determined as I have ever been that this aggression will not stand," he declared. "We have a lot of troops there, and they are highly motivated. That alone is sending a strong message to Saddam Hussein." Speaking in Los Angeles the same day, Secretary of State James Baker was even more explicit: "We will not rule out a possible use of force if Iraq continues to occupy Kuwait."

Other Administration officials went still further by suggesting that the U.S. would send an unarmed cargo ship to resupply the embassy in Kuwait City, where 27 diplomats are reportedly down to their last month's worth of canned tuna and rice. If Iraq tried to interfere with the mission, that might provide a pretext for massive military retaliation. Saddam's reaction was to put his commanders on "extreme alert" in order to "thwart the perfidious intentions of the United States and its allies to launch an attack in the coming few days."

As the war talk escalated, congressional leaders sought reassurance that Bush is not planning to launch an offensive while the legislature is in recess for the next three months. Bush refused to commit himself. Although the Constitution gives only Congress the authority to declare war, Bush, like several recent Presidents, claims the right to use military force on his own. "Nobody asked the President to rule out a military option," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont after the leaders conferred with Bush. "But many of us told him to make sure that we don't use the military option out of impatience."

Did the President really mean those threats of war, or was he just trying to get voters' minds off the budget mess and the impending recession and end his own slump in the opinion polls? Bush branded those suggestions as "the ultimate of cynicism and indecency." When questioned by reporters about whether he was attempting to prepare the American people for war, Bush denied it. "I'm not trying to sound the tocsin of war," he said. "I want to have a peaceful resolution to this question. I've indicated we're prepared to give sanctions time to work, and I'll repeat that. But I'm not ruling out further options."

When the U.N. voted to bar all trade into or out from Iraq, many experts estimated it would take at least six months, and perhaps even a year, before economic collapse would paralyze the Iraqi army and provoke street riots or coup attempts. So far, the political impact of the sanctions has been virtually nil. One effect, the imposition of gas rationing, was abruptly canceled last week when Saddam announced that the Oil Minister had underestimated the available supplies of necessary chemical additives. After firing the minister, Saddam gave the job to his son-in-law.

Imports of industrial goods, raw materials and machinery have been reduced by 90%, according to State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler. Shortages of imported lubricants, spare parts and chemicals are causing production difficulties. Bread, sugar and soap are being rationed.

Despite all this, there are many weak spots in the embargo. Western intelligence officials have learned that Saddam stockpiled rice, wheat and other foods before invading Kuwait, and the Iraqi army's plundering of Kuwaiti warehouses has increased Iraq's supplies substantially. Besides, Iraq has had a record harvest this year; the markets contain plenty of fruits and vegetables. One reason for the bountiful supplies is that Saddam's government has eased many controls on farmers and increased food prices. Higher prices have also inspired Iranian and Turkish smugglers to supply the black market.

Industry has been more directly hit by the lack of spare parts, and many long-term building projects have had to be postponed, but cannibalizing and improvising can make a lot of difference. Another major effect of the embargo has been to cut Iraq's ability to pay for its imports with oil revenues. Here, too, Saddam can find ways around the restrictions. For one thing, he confiscated some $1 billion in gold in the Kuwaiti treasury. Libya's Muammar Gaddafi has reportedly been offering him credit. In addition, Saddam runs a police state that can easily squelch discontent about plunging living standards. Adding up all the guesses and intangibles, Western intelligence officials estimate that Saddam can survive the embargo pretty well until some time in the middle of next year, at the earliest -- a long time for the fraying Western coalition to hold together.

The blockade might eventually persuade Saddam to withdraw. In fact, Washington's bellicose talk last week, however discordant, was basically intended to enhance the blockade's impact. "In terms of shaping Saddam's calculus," says a State Department official, "what you're looking for is not economic deprivation that causes riots in the streets but rather a sense that the sanctions are gradually having effect, that they're not going to be loosened, that the international consensus in favor of them is strong. Then, projecting them out into the future, Saddam sees a point where they are going to affect his survival."

In theory, then, the tocsins of war might make war unnecessary, if the U.S. and its allies remain patient enough for the blockade and pressure to work. That, in turn, will require unified support from the American people for the means, as well as the ends, of Bush's policy. The President's inability to clarify how he plans to get Saddam out of Kuwait last week did nothing to halt the confusion. Perhaps he can better explain his objectives to the Americans with the most at stake in the crisis: the troops he will be meeting on a Thanksgiving Day visit to the gulf.

With reporting by Dean Fischer/Cairo and J.F.O. McAllister/Washington