home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1990s
/
Time_Almanac_1990s_SoftKey_1994.iso
/
time
/
040891
/
0408101.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
3KB
|
67 lines
<text id=91TT0731>
<title>
Apr. 08, 1991: Schwarzkopf's 100 Hours:Too Few?
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1991
Apr. 08, 1991 The Simple Life
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
NATION, Page 22
Schwarzkopf's 100 Hours: Too Few?
</hdr><body>
<p> STOPPED SHORT--SCHWARZKOPF. That headline in the hawkish
Washington Times last week stung President Bush into a
mercifully brief but nonetheless unfortunate and ironic tiff
with the nation's newest idol. Unfortunate because the White
House cast it in terms of who said what to whom when, thus
obscuring a genuinely important question: Was the cease-fire
Bush ordered after 100 hours of the ground war premature?
Ironic, because the White House could easily have won that
debate.
</p>
<p> The spat started when David Frost interviewed for public
television the top allied commander in the gulf. Schwarzkopf
said he had recommended that the U.S. keep fighting, since his
troops could have "made it a battle of annihilation" that, by
inference, would have finished Saddam's regime. To many
listeners, it sounded like a man praising his boss's
magnanimity, but Bush decided he could not afford the impression
that he had "wimped out," as an aide put it. His advisers put
out word that the general had raised no objection when Joint
Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell phoned Schwarzkopf on Feb.
27 to tell him the President was about to order hostilities
stopped.
</p>
<p> Which was neither here nor there. Schwarzkopf would have
made privately to Powell any recommendation that the allies
keep fighting; when told in effect that he had already been
overruled, he would of course abide by the decision of the
Commander in Chief. At week's end the general closed the debate
with a graceful apology. But that didn't necessarily settle the
substantive question of whether the U.S. had in fact stopped
fighting too soon.
</p>
<p> The answer almost certainly is no. Doubtless Schwarzkopf's
troops could have destroyed more of the troops and armor that
Saddam is using to suppress the revolts that broke out almost
as soon as the war ended. But that would have meant continuing
a horrible "turkey shoot" of fleeing Iraqi forces after the war
had effectively been won. The allies' goals were to drive
Saddam's forces out of Kuwait and cripple Iraq's offensive
military capacity. Both had been achieved before the 100 hours
were up.
</p>
<p> Continuing the war would have been seen by the world, with
reason, as a pointless snuffing out of lives. Critics may argue
that the same Iraqi soldiers who were spared went on to
slaughter anti-Saddam rebels. But on balance the decision to
stop the bloodshed the moment victory was assured was right--and very American.
</p>
</body></article>
</text>