AS LUCK WOULD HAVE IT, British prime minister Margaret Thatcher was in Aspen, Colorado, when President Bush arrived to give a speech there in August 1990. It was just after Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and Bush was pondering how aggressively to respond. He and Thatcher, who was vacationing prior to giving an Aspen speech of her own, conferred for several hours. Her now-famous advice was: “Remember, George, now is no time to go wobbly.” Not only that, she was tough and outspoken when she and Bush talked to reporters. Thatcher favored the strongest possible action against Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. “You cannot have a situation where one country marches in and takes over another country,” she declared. Bush may not have needed any spine-stiffening, but at the least Thatcher’s advice reinforced his inclination to respond forcefully.
In the latest Iraqi crisis, congressional Republicans could have played Thatcher to President Clinton’s Bush. But they didn’t show up. That was unfortunate because they might have spurred Clinton to punish Saddam in a way that weakened him and deterred further troublemaking. True, Republicans had an excuse for their no-show. Congress was in recess as the crisis came to a head. House speaker Newt Gingrich was on a four-day speaking tour in behalf of House Republicans. Senate majority leader Trent Lott was away, too. Sen. Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was home in North Carolina. Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected GOP player in foreign policy, was on a trip to Russia.
Still, there were things Republicans could have done to point Clinton away from the deal he accepted on November 20, a deal that left Saddam unpunished. After all, GOP leaders have standing with Clinton on foreign affairs, having backed him on fast track, China policy, and NATO expansion. So a few key Republicans could have gone to the White House to advise Clinton. Before recessing, they could have passed a resolution demanding retaliation against Saddam. Or, more dramatically, they could have called Congress back in session to promote punishment for Saddam. Instead of fielding occasional press calls, they could have made a concerted effort to get on TV talk shows to give their take on Iraq. They could have drafted a strong letter to Clinton, then released it to the press. They could have come together for a news conference, or they could have convened individual ones around the country. In short, they could have created enormous pressure for stern action against Saddam.
What exactly should they have urged Clinton to do? They could have told the president they’d back him if he defied queasy allies like France and Russia and acted unilaterally. They could have promised GOP support for penalizing Saddam, either by military strikes or tougher sanctions. They could have recommended he organize a full-blown effort to depose Saddam and promised funding for it. All they had to do is determine what Thatcher would have said — not too hard a task — and repeat it to Clinton.
Everything was in place for Republicans to play a pivotal, Thatcher-like role. Public opinion favored a harsh response to Iraq, including military strikes. Clinton was prepared to deal firmly, having deployed a serious military force in the Persian Gulf. And when asked, Republicans had exactly the right view of the situation. They figured Saddam had expelled American inspectors to protect biological or chemical weapons that might have been uncovered. They believed he wanted to divide the coalition against him on the United Nations Security Council. And they knew he was eager to isolate and tweak the United States.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, an influential GOP voice on foreign policy, expressed precisely this view. “Obviously, Saddam has had time to move [weapons of mass destruction] or conceal them in some fashion,” he told me on the Fox News Channel on November 18. Saddam has damaged an already “badly broken” coalition, McCain said. He’s now “enhanced in prestige” both in Iraq and in the Middle East. “And what at the end of the day is to prevent Saddam Hussein” from provoking another crisis? McCain asked. Nothing, he suggested. Yet he said it wouldn’t be appropriate for congressional Republicans to try to exert pressure on Clinton. “I’ve always wanted to give the benefit of the doubt to the president of the United States,” McCain said. “I think when Congress begins conducting foreign policy, it is not usually a very productive operation.”
GOP senator Al D’Amato of New York agreed Saddam emerged the winner. ” There’s no doubt in my mind he secreted [biological or chemical weapons] some other place,” he told radio showman Don Imus. But D’Amato didn’t urge the president and his advisers to take stronger action. They did “the only thing they could,” he said. “They did it well. You’ve got to play your hand.” Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Desert Storm in 1991, said he supported Clinton’s attempt to resolve the crisis without military action. “I hope we can take the time to let this play out and see if there’s any flexibility [for] some diplomatic solution,” Powell told the New York Post. Republican representative Henry Hyde of Illinois, an influential member of the House International Relations Committee, praised the Clinton administration for going along with the Russian-arranged settlement. “I’m a critic of the administration,” he said, but not this time. “I think it was the best of all solutions.”
Margaret Thatcher wouldn’t have said that.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
