home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century
/
TIME, Almanac of the 20th Century.ISO
/
1990
/
90
/
oct_dec
/
10010012.000
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-02-27
|
7KB
|
154 lines
<text>
<title>
(Oct. 01, 1990) Who Lost Kuwait?
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990 Highlights
The Gulf:Desert Shield
</history>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990
Oct. 01, 1990 David Lynch
</history>
<link 02738>
<link 01593>
<link 00047>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
WORLD, Page 54
Who Lost Kuwait?
</hdr><body>
<p>While no one is using those accusatory words yet, finger
pointing is in full swing in the corridors of Washington
</p>
<p>By BRUCE W. NELAN -- Reported by William Dowell/Cairo, Dean
Fischer/Dhahran and Christopher Ogden/Washington
</p>
<p> Behind the steel curtain of Iraqi tanks and guns, occupied
Kuwait is losing its national life. The uniformed invaders who
declared the tiny country a province of Iraq are systematically
destroying what remains of its identity, pillaging its economy
and brutalizing its people. Everything of value, from furniture
to computers to uprooted traffic lights, is being shipped to
Iraq.
</p>
<p> In the process, Saddam Hussein is remaking Kuwait's
demography to suit himself. Thousands of fleeing Kuwaitis have
been allowed across the border into Saudi Arabia and replaced
by an influx of Iraqi civilians. Government records are being
carted off or burned; soon it will be hard to prove who is or
is not a Kuwaiti.
</p>
<p> At the Khafji crossing point on the Saudi-Kuwait border last
week, air-conditioned Mercedes-Benz and other late-model sedans
lined up by the hundreds. Their passengers told stories of
beatings, looting and nights full of gunfire. While there is
still food in the shops, they said, rationing had begun, and
Iraqis had first claim on all supplies. Other refugees told of
shootings, explosions and summary executions of suspected
resistance fighters.
</p>
<p> As the "Iraqization" of Kuwait becomes bloodier, it raises
a serious question for the U.S. and its allies: Even if the
international effort succeeds in forcing Saddam out, what will
remain of Kuwait? Meanwhile, full-scale finger pointing has
begun in Washington on a related question -- whether the Bush
Administration did enough to prevent the invasion of Kuwait in
the first place.
</p>
<p> By July 28, five days before Iraqi tanks rolled into Kuwait,
U.S. reconnaissance satellites had spotted the logistical
preparations for an offensive. The CIA and Pentagon quickly
changed their estimates of an attack from possible to highly
likely. The White House and State Department, however, clung
to the view that Saddam was only trying to frighten Kuwait into
territorial concessions and refused to accept that intelligence
judgment.
</p>
<p> On Capitol Hill last week, Lee Hamilton, chairman of the
House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East, reminded
Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly that he had defended
the Administration's conciliatory policy toward Saddam as late
as July 31, two days before the invasion. Kelly had also said
the U.S. was not bound by a defense treaty with any gulf state.
"You left the impression," said Hamilton, "that it was the
policy of the U.S. not to come to the aid of Kuwait."
</p>
<p> At the State Department there were suspicions that the
Administration's preferred scapegoat might be Ambassador April
Glaspie, who left Baghdad for Washington the day before the
invasion. At a meeting with Saddam on July 25 she told the
Iraqi President that George Bush "personally wants to expand
and deepen the relationship with Iraq." She assured him that
"we don't have much to say about Arab-Arab differences, like
your border differences with Kuwait. All we hope is that you
solve those matters quickly."
</p>
<p> Some in Washington have argued that Glaspie's enunciation
of U.S. policy might have seemed a nod and a wink in the Middle
East style, giving a green light to Iraqi action. But Saddam
indicated that he had already formed a judgment on the limits
of U.S. power. "The nature of American society," he told her,
"makes it impossible for the U.S. to bear tens of thousands of
casualties in one battle."
</p>
<p> Saddam probably based his opinion as much on U.S. actions
over the past decade as on anything Glaspie said. He had
watched the U.S. withdraw from Lebanon after its embassy and
Marine barracks were truck-bombed in 1983, benefited from
Washington's tilt toward Iraq in the war with Iran, and noted
the relative lack of outrage against his use of chemical
weapons on Iraqi Kurds. He apparently concluded that he could
invade Kuwait and face little more than formal protests from
the U.S.
</p>
<p> The Iraqi leader was encouraged in that belief by an
American policy toward Baghdad that Democratic Representative
Tom Lantos of California last week called "obsequious" and
"based on fiction and fantasy." The fiction, as Bush concedes,
was that "there was some reason to believe that perhaps
improved relations with the West would modify his behavior."
Bush and Baker, neither of them expert in Middle East affairs,
were advised to pursue that course by their moderate Arab
friends, especially Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and
Jordanian King Hussein.
</p>
<p> The policy of stroking Saddam was, until this year, popular
in Congress as well. Representatives from farm states pushed
for billion-dollar commodity credits for Iraq, and many leaders
on the Hill supported the theory that Saddam could be wooed
into gentility. Senators flew to Baghdad to chat with him. Alan
Simpson, a Republican from Wyoming, advised him that his
problem was simply his bad image in America's "haughty and
pampered press." Howard Metzenbaum, an Ohio Democrat, told
Saddam, "I am now aware that you are a strong and intelligent
man and that you want peace."
</p>
<p> In light of the invasion, Bush says, it can be argued that
U.S. policy did not "make much sense." It is painfully true,
as Kelly put it, under intense congressional questioning last
week, that "it did not succeed." But that does not necessarily
mean it was illogical. There are only two basic ways to deal
with a rogue nation -- isolation (the stick) or involvement
(the carrot) -- and the argument over which path to pursue is
unending.
</p>
<p> During the early days of detente, Henry Kissinger argued
that wrapping the Soviet Union in a web of agreements and
exchanges would drain off its belligerence. Ronald Reagan
believed in "constructive engagement" to break down the
apartheid regime in South Africa. Bush refused to freeze
contacts with China even after the massacre of students in
Beijing.
</p>
<p> None of those choices was an unmixed success. But the effort
to pull hostile governments into cooperative relations is still
under way. Washington is trying to find common ground with
Syria and Iran. It is a good bet that one day there will be
postmortems on the wisdom of those attempts.
</p>
</body></article>
</text>