WASHINGTON: It's virtually a mathematical ratio: The more warplanes fly to the Gulf, the more doubt and opposition increases at home. As the Air Force dispatched whole squadrons of F-16s and B-52s throwing in a B-1 for good measure the Capitol bore witness to antiwar protests from the most surprising sources.
For instance, you'd never expect two former directors of the CIA to start chanting "Hell, no, we won't go." But when James Woolsey and John Deutsch went before a House committee Thursday, their protests were no less explosive. "The problem with Iraq will not be solved by an air campaign," said Deutsch. Woolsey complained that even if we did want air strikes, Saddam had been given too much warning: "This may be the most telegraphed punch in military history," he added.
In fact, not even Madeleine Albright's cheerful utopian vision of a post-Saddam Iraq could coax Congress into voting on a resolution of support, and they left for a weeklong President's Day break without so much as discussing it. Three senators have already turned on, tuned in and dropped out of supporting the President on military action, and more look set to join them. If a vote were taken now, "we wouldn't get it," admitted a glum Trent Lott.
He should know it's senators on his side of the aisle who are most vocal in their opposition. "The question is, how does Saddam come out of whatever military force we use?" asked Arlen Specter (R-Pa). Good question, and one which the White House ironically, occupied by a president who was unsupportive on Vietnam is unwilling to answer.