From: cbp@gmhgate.gmh.edu (Christopher Preston)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Keywords: Iraq, Yugoslavia, election
Organization: Grady Memorial Hospital
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:02:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.130005.3890@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> pat@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan) writes:
>
>	After listening to NPR this morning (7/22), I got
>to wondering about what effect any US military intervention
>in Yugoslavia or Iraq would have on the election.  Consider:
>
>	(a) Yugoslavia is shattering into more pieces every
>day.  The UN seems to be moving closer to come kind of direct
>intervention.  If they want to use more than the token force
>they have there now, they will need assistance from the US military.

	In '88 United States Army Europe comprised about 17% of 
	ground forces during peace and 11% during a full scale
	mobilization (if memory servers, been awhile since I 
	had to worry about such details).  Since then the 
	3d Armored division has been deactivated as well 
	as a large number of smaller units, and is way down
	from the 325,000 soldiers of days gone by.

	Additionally, this is an area that the European are
	unlikely to allow the U.S. to take a front seat in
	policy making.

	Therefore, IMHO, both the size of forces and the nature
	of the problem geographically and politically would
	sequester Bush and the U.S. to a back seat.  This
	would deny him the opportunity to play the world
	leader card in a comfortable setting.  Probably
	not something the Bush strategists would like to
	see happen.

>
>	(b) The UN investigators are having more and more
>hassles with the Iraqi government.  The Washington Times had
>a headline this morning which mentioned "war clouds on the
>horizon".  NPR mentioned something about the possibility of
>a "limited air strike".

	Further U.S. involvement in Iraq will tend to highlight
	the fact that with a massive 26 nation force in place,
	and solidarity behind the United State's leadership,
	Bush did eleminate the opposition in Baghdad.

	IMHO, further involvement would simply provide 
	opportunity for arguing that Bush does not follow
	through and that this failure continues to put
	the lives of American service members at risk.

	This might also return to light the U.S. urging
	of revolt and the plight of those that listened
	for over a year thereafter, not to mention the
	helicopter attacks in the North.

	One can always argue that sending troops further into
	Iraq would have risked the coalition, and cost more lives,
	but such arguments are seldom strong if lives are lost
	in the present.

	Many Americans like their wars short and victories complete.
	Anything that gets drawn out is bad politics, IMHO.

>
>So, the questions at hand are:
>
>	If the US attacks Iraq, will that help Mr. Bush?
>Hurt Bush?  Help Clinton?  Hurt Clinton?

	My vote:

	Point out Bush weaknesses in an area that he received 
	almost universal aclaim [sp?] a year ago.

	Help Clinton by providing an object lesson in lingering problems
	and insufficient follow through.

>
>	What about Yugoslavia?


	Do little for Bush, could even show a further weaking of
	NATO, depending on the degree of leadership the French and
	Germans decide to take, it's their back yard.

	Do nothing for Clinton

>
>	
>	Just to get the ball rolling, here's what I think:
>As a Clinton supporter, I do worry that Bush might time such
>an attack as to try to appear more "presidential" and evoke
>memories of the Gulf conflict.  In the broader view, however,
>I don't think that it will affect his stature that much.  The
>faltering economy and 10M people out of work are much more
>important.  

	At least some people's reaction would be, "I thought we
	settled this a year ago."

>I think an attack at this point would get a lot
>of people wondering why we didn't finish the job right the
>first time.

	Bingo.

>
>pat
>

cbp
-- 
Christopher Preston     | I represent no opinions but my own.
Datacommunications      | 
Grady Memorial Hospital | "Let them eat pork rinds" - G. Bush