WASHINGTON At town meetings throughout the United States duringthe last few days, members of Congress have been hearing the sameresponse whenever they ask how people they feel about the prospect ofU.S. involvement in a Middle East war:
"There's a thundering silence," said Rep. David R. Nagle(D-Iowa).
"Ask them about the savings and loan crisis, and they will go onfor hours," Nagle said. "But you really have to work hard to get themto talk about this."
That silence, pollsters said, represents a serious potentialdanger for President Bush as he plots strategy in the Middle Eastover the next few months.
Although most American voters and members of Congress appear tosupport what Bush has done to check Iraqi aggression, many seemuneasy about the possibility of war, and uncertain as to whether theycan support U.S. military involvement in a protracted conflict.
"People are very scared. This looks too much like Vietnam,"said Sen. Alan J. Dixon (D-Ill.), a member of the Senate ArmedServices Committee.
Polling data and interviews with lawmakers suggest that Bushrisks losing political support for his deployment of U.S. troops inthe Middle East if Americans come to believe he is leading them intoanother Vietnam.
And members of Congress say that if he hopes to maintain solidpolitical backing for this operation, Bush must adopt a long-termplan that contains three fundamental, and politically important,elements: He must explore every possible avenue for resolving theconflict diplomatically. He must maintain strong international support. If the standoff should erupt into war, he must use all the militaryresources available in an effort to win as quickly as possible.
Like Nagle, Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) reports an eeriesilence in her Marin County district. Her office telephones, whichordinarily would be ringing during such a crisis, are strangelyquiet.
"People are glued to this thing. They are scared and they don'tknow what the answer is," she said.
To pollster Celinda Lake, this is a sign that public opinion isstill in flux, that Americans have been slow to decide how they feelabout developments in the Middle East.
"Judgment has been suspended," Lake said. "People have ralliedaround for now, but they have not yet made a judgment about it."
Recent polls show that women and members of minority groups aremore reluctant than white males to support U.S. military involvementin the Middle East. Women traditionally have been less supportive ofmilitary conflict, particularly if it means their sons must go towar. And pollsters say many members of minority groups apparentlybelieve the money spent on war could be better invested at home.
Even so, many congressmen are convinced the country willoverwhelmingly support U.S. involvement in a Middle East war,provided that the U.S. action is in response to a clear provocationby Iraq, and that the conflict is concluded quickly.
But some military experts in Congress contend that Bush would bemaking a mistake to retaliate.
"I don't see a military option that can achieve an objectivethat you can secure," said Rep. Dave McCurdy (D-Okla.), a member ofthe Armed Services and Intelligence committees. "It's going to be adiplomatic solution, if there's a solution at all."
A potential problem for Bush is that, for the moment, Americansstill seem uncertain about his objective in sending troops to SaudiArabia: Is he trying to halt Iraqi aggression or to preserve a keysource of American oil as well.
Working in his favor is that Iraqi President Saddam Husseinmakes such a perfect villain in American eyes.
Hussein's behavior and his detention of foreign citizens hashelped to galvanize American public opinion.
"Right now, they see the objective as stopping a tyrant, whomthey see as Hitler," said John R. Kasich (R-Ohio), a member of theHouse Armed Services Committee.
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), also an Armed Services Committeemember, agreed.
"People understand the nature of Saddam Hussein," he said."There's a great deal of trust in the military, and a great deal oftrust in the president's judgment."
But some lawmakers fear that Bush may encounter some difficultyin trying to persuade the public that military intervention wasnecessary to protect U.S. oil interests in the Persian Gulf, despitethe serious damage that a cutoff of Middle East oil supplies - orsharply higher prices - might wreak.
Nagle points out that oil companies are so unpopular in someregions that the public may not appreciate the need to ensure steadyoil supplies.
"People are steamed at the oil companies, and who wants to go towar to protect their profits?" he said.
Moreover, Dixon predicted that support for Bush would begin toslide if oil prices continue to skyrocket.
"People don't want to pay $3 for gas," he said. "If (gasolineprices) go up a whole lot, he'd better have a good explanation why."
No comments:
Post a Comment