Better Reasons Get Better Support : Nothing automatic about backing a war

President Bush acknowledges, in an interview on CNN, that he has done a less-than-satisfactory job in explaining his Persian Gulf policy to the American people and rallying support behind it. Chairman Les Aspin of the House Armed Services Committee, who supports Bush’s actions in the gulf, agrees.

The President, he says, has proven to be an “inept communicator” and as a result support for his actions has plummeted. Recognizing that a problem exists is the first step toward trying to resolve it. Bush now knows that a growing part of the public is uncertain, unconvinced and unmoved about what he is trying to do. He faces the risk of serious political setback unless he starts to articulate his case more coherently and more persuasively.

Inept is not an unfair characterization of the Administration’s efforts to date to explain and justify its military response to Iraq’s aggression. Its contributions to public understanding have ranged from the President’s casual sloganeering early on--”Listen, watch and learn”--to Secretary of State James A. Baker’s recent and rather feeble effort to define the face-off in the gulf as ultimately being all about preserving American jobs. In between came Bush’s foray into Saddam Hussein-bashing on the campaign trail that failed either to ignite popular passions or illuminate urgent issues of public policy.

The vacuum created by the Administration’s inability to explain the underlying reasons for its actions has not gone unfilled. At this point organized opposition to the possibility of going to war probably remains as soft and subject to change as does support for the war option. Nonetheless, doubts and questions are being raised ever more insistently across a wide spectrum of opinion.

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a letter its drafter says reflects the views of a majority of those attending the conference’s annual meeting, warns that military action against Iraq at this time could violate the criteria of a “just war.” The governing body of the National Council of Churches wants to see a U.S. build-down in the gulf to reduce the chances of war. The latest Times Poll finds mounting apprehension at the prospect of war. Despite years of polls indicating low public esteem for the United Nations, 80% in the recent opinion survey say Bush should have U.N. Security Council approval before going to war.

Americans know, from experience and intuitively, that wars are terrible things and must never be blundered into. Americans also know that sometimes even the most dedicated diplomacy and best of intentions aren’t enough to forestall taking the last dreaded step into hostilities.

But there is nothing automatic about the willingness of a people in a democracy to support going to war. A President can’t try to sell the public on a policy touching on fundamental issues of war and peace with the same kind of buzzwords and bumper-sticker slogans that characterize presidential elections campaigns. Americans who may soon be led into war demand and have the right to be given convincing reasons why.