Stalemate Is Path to Victory : Persian Gulf: Wars are won without a shot being fired.

The United States is rushing headlong into a military conflict that would be terribly costly to this country, the world and the Middle East, in particular. The world has been struck by the ability of our military to put in place the manpower and some, although limited, weapons in a very short time. And the world opposed to Saddam Hussein has achieved a stalemate in the Persian Gulf as a result of these heroic U.S. military accomplishments.

But might it not be time for us to reflect on some overwhelming historical precedents before we stumble blindly into an unnecessary military conflict? The world has cheered the end of the Cold War, won without West or East firing a shot in direct military action. The massive resources strategically placed in Europe and the overwhelming technological leadership of the free world drove the communist hegemony in Europe to self-destruction. The resources of the Soviet Union have been wasted in a losing confrontation with the resources of the West. This confrontation--an armed stand-off--lasted for more than 40 years. But because of patience, the battle was avoided.

Today, there is another continuing military confrontation: Armed and ready troops have faced each other across the demilitarized zone in Korea since 1953, almost 40 years of confrontation without direct combat. Again, it looks as if a decades-long stand-off will end with the communist economy failing and the initial goals of freedom for all of Korea being realized in a reasonable time--now that North Korea faces further isolation with only minimal support from either China or the Soviet Union.

In comparison, during this same time, the United States has unilaterally engaged in three armed conflicts--in Grenada, Panama and Vietnam. The record in each is already history--a cost in military and civilian lives that will pale in contrast to those that can be anticipated in an armed conflict in Kuwait and Iraq. The Russian adventure in Afghanistan has an equally dismal record.

If we look at the record, if we look at the already-accomplished isolation of Iraq, an armed stand-off--rather than an outright battle--might by far be the only logical and practical solution for all.

Although the Kuwaitis have been displaced, even pillaged, the damage from an armed conflict will devastate the rest of that country and much of the rest of the Arab world.

In time, with a rigorously enforced embargo, Iraq will withdraw, just as the Russians are leaving Eastern Europe. It will happen early if the gulf alliance maintains the credible patience in this stand-off that we did in Europe.

If oil is all we want, Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and others have already met world needs and, in fact, today there are documented surpluses.

An armed conflict will be neither short nor will the losses be light. The Iraqis are determined combatants, dug in and well equipped. The United States has already strained its resources. Marine Commandant Gen. Alfred Gray has already questioned our ability to support our forces for a sustained conflict. He has only 60 days of supplies, and the Army has less. Logistics, the steady stream of food, fuel, munitions and other supplies are key and have been neglected in the U.S. arms buildup.

This conflict is not a replay of Vietnam. It bodes to be tougher and more costly if it escalates to battle. Logic and the world demand that the stand-off continue now that we have come this far.