Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: War will be U.S. decision

Friday, Jan. 31, 2003 | 4:35 a.m.

CRITICS OF TAKING on Saddam Hussein without a large coalition of nations have only one good argument. The smaller the number of nations involved, the more American taxpayers will have to send to Washington. Sure, there are legitimate concerns about how taking action without the full backing of the United Nations Security Council can have negative diplomatic repercussions. But in the long run, diplomatic issues fade into the background if the small coalition has a quick victory.

A large coalition force with full U.N. backing will not save the life of one American. When all is said and done, it will be the armed forces of our country that will execute the war. It's nice to have lots of friends on our side, but a few extra cheerleaders doesn't mean a thing. War is like a street fight where two guys pummel each other but seldom is a drop of blood shed by those who holler, cheer and clap their hands.

Probably the most coordinated and U.N.-supported war was in Korea during 1950-53. Nevertheless, the heavy fighting was done by seven American divisions and at least eight South Korean divisions. Only the British showed up with their complete Commonwealth Division, and Turkey provided a brigade. Both units fought effectively and gained the admiration of American troops. France, Holland, Belgium, Greece, Philippines, Thailand and Columbia each provided one battalion. They were also good combat units attached to American divisions.

Forty years later, during the Gulf War, we again had a coalition put together to oust Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait. The greatest help we had from nearby Saudi Arabia was its money and military bases. Again it was the Brits who showed up early with military forces.

The book "Military Lessons of the Gulf War" is written by several experts and senior analysts. It reveals a meeting President George H.W. Bush had with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Aspen, Colo. "At the time, he did not believe that Iraq would invade Saudi Arabia and was leaning against a military response. However, Thatcher argued that Iraq would invade and that the only option was to send troops to the region. This established an Anglo-American cooperation that would be the core of the Coalition."

The authors give the following view of France: "In this respect, France pursued an independent policy in her long-held wish not to be under America's shadow. Alternatively, since she did not want to give her Arab friends the impression that she had abandoned them, she pursued every possibility for peace. After a week of what the British Press called 'dithering,' France supported removing Saddam from Kuwait. While it took six weeks and the violation of the French Embassy in Kuwait before she began Operation Daguet, her historic and economic ties with the Middle East were not ones that she wished to lose."

Not much has changed in the world of diplomacy during the past decade. Of course, by now we have become accustomed to the role played by France. When President Ronald Reagan had a gut full of Libya's support of terrorism, he sent bombers from our bases in Britain to deliver a message. France and Spain wouldn't allow our planes to overfly their territory.

Another part of the Gulf War coalition were several Arab countries. Syria, for example, sent 17,000 troops and 270 tanks. During the conflict they had one light skirmish on the way to Kuwait City but refused to confront Saddam's Republican Guard or enter Iraq. Also, Syria wouldn't allow our aircraft to overfly its boundaries. For this, Saudi Arabia gave Syria $500 million, which was probably used to buy more weapons from Russia and North Korea.

Secretary of State Colin Powell's appearance before the Security Council this week will be interesting and important to all of us. If his presentation is convincing that war is necessary, then having a large or small coalition shouldn't determine what actions we will take.