(2 of 9)
The unease about Haig's de parture centered on the fact that the most knowledgeable and experienced foreign policy hand in an Administration not noted for diplomatic expertise had quit at a moment when the U.S. was trying to cope with a host of challenging global troubles. In the Middle East, the U.S. is desperately attempting to patch together some kind of settlement in Lebanon, for fear that the Israeli invasion of the country might set the whole region aflame—or, at minimum, irretrievably damage American interests in the Arab world. In Europe, the anger of American allies at U.S. opposition to their economic dealings with the Soviets threatens, in Haig's view at least, the stability of the NATO alliance. In Latin America, U.S. support for Britain's unyielding stand on the Falkland Islands has enraged many nations that Washington would like to court. In Geneva this week, U.S. and Soviet negotiators will sit down to open an ultra-important round of new talks on reduction of strategic nuclear weapons. Moscow's leaders are already expressing heightened puzzlement as to what kind of American strategy they will face.
In short, it was almost the worst possible moment for the Administration to be plunged into internal turmoil. However able Shultz may prove to be, he will at best need time to brief himself on the specifics of foreign problems and straighten out the tangled lines of authority in policymaking. It may take until mid-July before his nomination is confirmed by the Senate. Haig has said that he will stay on until then, but he will obviously have no clout. And events may not wait for the transition, as the Israeli bombs and shells falling on West Beirut all too starkly demonstrated last week.
It was, in fact, the feeling that some foreign troubles were spinning out of control—at least, out of his control—that seems to have triggered Haig's sudden departure. Those difficulties were not exactly the reasons for his resignation; there was no single predominant reason. Many Administration officials view Haig's departure as due to a clash of personalities more than to policy quarrels. But bitter disagreements between Haig and other officials over policy toward Israel and the celebrated pipeline that will carry Soviet natural gas from Siberia to Western Europe did bring to a head a long series of tensions and frustrations that had been building since the Reagan Administration took office.
Haig's quarrels with the White House staff started a few hours after the Inauguration, when he handed Presidential Counsellor Edwin Meese a memo, for Reagan's approval, demanding total control over foreign policy (he never quite got it). Haig was often at public odds with Cabinet colleagues and even some of his subordinates.
Says one Administration official: "Just consider all the people he has been in fights with recently: [Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Director Eugene] Rostow, [Secretary of Defense Caspar] Weinberger, [U.N. Ambassador Jeane] Kirkpatrick, [White House Chief of Staff James] Baker, [National Security Adviser William] Clark, [Secretary of the Treasury Donald] Regan. There is no way you can have everybody divorced from foreign policy questions except for the Secretary of State, as Haig tried to do."