AGAIN THE AGONY : Bush’s First Big Test

Last week was George Bush’s toughest week so far as President. How did he do?

He did about the same as every other President has done in a hostage crisis. The United States looked helpless. And the President of the United States looked ineffectual.

A hostage crisis doomed Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Ronald Reagan made his worst decision as President -- selling arms to Iran--because of his frustration over a hostage situation.

A hostage crisis is the most frustrating problem a President can face. He is under immense pressure to do something. And there is little he can do. Our enormous military power is of no value when it comes to saving individual lives. That is exactly why terrorists find American hostages so valuable. With an American hostage, you can make the United States look helpless. And you can make the U.S. President look ineffectual.

Look at the pressure the President was under last week. A Republican congressman said, “It is time for the United States, without regard to what anybody else thinks, to go to the root of the evil in the Middle East. We need revenge, we need justice.”

A Democratic congressman saw things differently. “A great country like ours is helpless,” he said. “The normal reaction would would be vengeful. But we need to know more about who the terrorists are, where they keep the hostages and how we can retaliate. We can’t blow up Lebanon just to avenge the life of one American.”

Most Americans probably agree with both points of view. Do something. But don’t do anything rash.

Bush is haunted by several images in the current crisis. One is the image of Carter. Car- ter’s deep moral convictions turned the Iranian hostage crisis into a personal and national obsession: “America Held Hostage.”

Another is the image of Reagan. Reagan’s air of toughness and self-assurance made him look in control of events even when he wasn’t. Everybody knew Reagan was perfectly capable of telling Beirut or Tehran, “We begin bombing in five minutes.” It was a relief when he didn’t. Reagan gained points for defying expectations and being cautious.

Bush is also haunted by his own image in the China crisis earlier this summer. Bush was cautious and sensible in his response to the Beijing government’s murderous crackdown on the student protesters. His prudence was applauded by foreign-policy professionals and approved by the U.S. public. But it didn’t help his image.

Bush failed to give voice to the anger and indignation felt by the American people. He spent too much time justifying our relationship with China and not enough time condemning their brutality. Bush’s policies in China were correct and professional. But they were also wimpy.

Reagan might have done the same thing in China. But Reagan didn’t have to prove anything. Bush does. We know he can beat up Michael S. Dukakis, but can he handle anybody tougher than that?

So far, Bush has done pretty well as President by being a nice guy. He compromised with Congress and has been conciliatory toward our allies. He has promoted the idea of a “kinder, gentler” America. Fine. But now that he faces his first serious crisis, Bush is under pressure to say, “No more Mr. Nice Guy.”

Comedian Jackie Mason does a devastating impression of Bush. He runs around in circles, muttering to himself, “Busy, busy, busy.”

Suddenly, the President stands still, raises his finger and makes a pronouncement: “Noriega--out!” He resumes rushing about, muttering, “Busy, busy, busy.” Another sudden stop, another bold pronouncement: “Exxon--clean it up!” That said, it’s back to work, “Busy, busy, busy.” Soon the President stops again, looks up and declares, “China--shame on you!” Then he goes back to his dithering, “Busy, busy, busy.”

That’s Bush all over. He is the busiest President in memory. But nothing keeps happening.

Last week, Bush seemed trapped by the contradictions and uncertainties of the hostage situation. For one thing, the President was unable to make up his mind whether this was a crisis. Bush started out with a bad decision to treat the matter as a grave national crisis. When he saw that nothing could be done, he made matters worse by pretending there was no crisis.

As soon as the President got the news that Shiite terrorists claimed to have executed Lt. Col. William R. Higgins, he canceled his trip to Las Vegas and rushed back to the White House, where he spent the day in emergency meetings with advisers and congressional leaders.

Then the President found out that we didn’t know much and we couldn’t do much. Bush discovered the same thing Carter and Reagan discovered--if you take a hostage crisis too seriously, the United States government ends up being held hostage by the crisis. The terrorists control your agenda.

So the next day, the Administration tried to downplay the issue. “We’re probably looking at a long-haul situation here,” a senior White House official said. Bush explained, “It’s very hard when you’re dealing with this kind of cowardice and this kind of dastardly act to get all the information you need to make a decision.”

Many people were surprised when the President went ahead Tuesday night with a massive barbecue on the White House lawn for 500 members of Congress. Clearly the President wanted the barbecue to be a statement: This Administration would not be immobilized by the hostage situation. Only the President never made that statement. All he said was, “These are not easy days in Congress or the White House.” So the whole event came off as a little callous.

The Administration seemed to be in a state of confusion over a lot of other things as well. Is the United States prepared to take military action? Bush is painfully aware of the dilemmas posed by military retaliation. As vice president, he chaired the Reagan Administration task force on terrorism. The commission’s report stated, “Our principles of justice will not permit random retaliation against groups or countries.”

The report went on to say “when perpetrators of terrorism can be identified or located, our policy is to act against terrorism without surrendering basic freedoms or endangering democratic values.” That’s hard in a place like Beirut.

By the end of the week, U.S. warships were steaming toward Lebanon and Iran. But White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater cautioned reporters, “I would not attach a great deal of significance” to these maneuvers. Just what message was Bush sending?

The one thing no one could get straight was the Administration attitude toward Israel after its commandos seized Sheik Abdel Karim Obeid in Lebanon on July 28. On Monday night, after the report of Higgins’ murder, Bush issued a statement saying, “On Friday, I said that the taking of any hostages was not helpful to the Middle East peace process. The brutal and tragic events of today have underscored the validity of that statement.”

In his statement, Bush also issued “an urgent call to all--all parties--who hold hostages in the Middle East to release them forthwith, as a humanitarian gesture.” Was Israel one of those parties? The United States clearly did not want to be seen as pressuring Israel to negotiate with terrorists.

Last Monday, when the Israelis heard that Higgins’ life was being threatened, they offered to exchange Obeid and other Shiite prisoners for Israeli and Western hostages. The United States tacitly agreed to the Israeli offer. Secretary of State James A. Baker III is reported to have offered the following formulation: “Our policy is we do not negotiate with terrorists. Israel has a different policy. As a result of these various policies, the U.S. government can neither concur in, nor object to, such an Israeli proposal.”

The Administration insisted, however, that it did not hold Israel responsible. “None of our statements should be taken as a criticism of Israel,” said one State Department official. House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) expressed concern that the terrorists were succeeding in driving a wedge between the United States and Israel. Other commentators brought the argument full circle by claiming Israel should have known its actions ran the risk of driving that wedge.

In the final analysis, it is difficult for the United States to do anything in a hostage crisis. We are limited by our values. To be sure, polls show that Americans endorse such principles as no negotiation with terrorists and military retaliation against governments that support terrorism.

But Americans do not always adhere to these principles in real-life situations. At the time of the TWA hostage crisis in 1985, a CBS News poll revealed that, by about 5-3, Americans felt the U.S. government should be more concerned about the lives of the hostages than about its policy of never negotiating with terrorists. In an ABC News-Washington Post poll, people said the United States should negotiate for the release of the hostages “even if that means giving in to the terrorists’ demands,” rather than risk having some of the hostages injured or killed. So much for matters of principle.

It is difficult for Americans to accept the argument that abstract concepts like the credibility of U.S. foreign policy and U.S. relations with Israel are more important than protecting innocent lives. Especially when the anguish of those innocent lives is dramatized on television.

There seem to be three possible outcomes of the current crisis. One is the hostages will be released in a trade with Israel. In that case, Bush and the Israeli government will come off as heroes. Another possibility is that the terrorists will murder more hostages and the United States will be forced to retaliate. In that case, tensions between the United States and Israel will rise and the Middle East conflict will escalate. The most likely possibility is that the stalemate will continue and the crisis will fade from public consciousness. Remember the crisis over our insisting on the ouster of Gen. Manuel A. Noriega in Panama? He’s still there.

There is only one thing Bush cannot do. That is control which of these outcomes actually occurs.