COLUMN RIGHT : Can We Afford an Uncertain Trumpet? : For good or ill, we all affect the course of events in the Gulf.

In his State of the Union Address, the President tried yet again to convince the American people of the rightness of his stance in the Gulf. But, despite his arguments and similar efforts over the last six months by his secretary of state, other senior Administration officials, and many of our friends and allies, a substantial number of Americans seem unconvinced. True, 75% or 80% of the American people, according to the latest polls, support U.S. policy in the Gulf, including the military operation there. But that leaves millions opposed, some violently, and no amount of explanation of war aims or visions of a new world order seems to move them.

Does it matter that we differ? Aren’t we entitled, as a basic freedom, to dissent, to debate the pros and cons of such great issues as war and peace?

I believe it does matter, for Saddam Hussein and others who do not have a clear understanding of our system can misinterpret the dissent they see and hear as American weakness. Indeed, in a recent interview on CNN, he pointedly thanked anti-war demonstrators for their efforts; he clearly views them as allies in helping him to evade the U.N. mandates to reverse his aggression against Kuwait. If his misinterpretation prolongs the war and costs thousands of lives, is that an appropriate price to pay for the privilege of appearing on network news shouting slogans?

I do not mean to trivialize the issue of free speech during wartime, nor do I argue against protests prior to the beginning of hostilities. But once the battle has been joined, the case is dramatically altered. In his State of the Union Address, the President reaffirmed the right and value of dissent: “The fact that all voices have the right to speak out is one of the reasons we’ve been united in purpose and principle for 200 years.”

The President should have added that prior to battle all the arguments, pro and con, were brought out in Congress during the longest continuous debate in that institution’s history, and in discussions, town meetings, demonstrations and news programs. But, the votes having been taken, the troops committed, the battle joined, can we afford to sound an uncertain trumpet? The question is not one of “right” but of wisdom. Surely it is now time to close ranks and demonstrate not 75% or 80% support for the men and women putting their lives on the line, but 100%.

It is not possible to support the troops while continuing to criticize the policy that has placed them in the Gulf. If the policy is worthless, then so is the cause that our soldiers are fighting for, and continued opposition will ultimately sap their morale.

Beyond the risks their actions raise--of being misinterpreted, of prolonging the war and increasing casualties as a result--the war protestors should contemplate another risk: What if they succeed, stop the war and cause the international effort against aggression to fail? Are they prepared to live with the results of their actions--the catastrophic consequences for Kuwait and its Gulf neighbors, for the future of the United Nations, for the prospects of a new world order and America’s role as a contributor to international peace and stability?

The press shares an especially heavy responsibility for the way the American public will respond as hostilities proceed. The conflict between the military’s desire to deny the enemy information and the media’s insistence on the right of the people to be fully informed is an old one. It can reach new heights in the Gulf area, both because of the instantaneous and simultaneous transmission of electronic information into America’s living rooms and Saddam Hussein’s headquarters and because of the intensity of the media’s Gulf coverage--something like 800 reporters are now there, chafing to get a story.

Somehow a better balance must be struck. As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist John Hughes recently wrote: “The reporters need to learn and develop more perspective on what is reasonable to report. The military needs to develop much more sophistication of its handling of the press. To some soldiers, the press seems a nuisance in wartime. But the quest for public support of the Bush Administration’s objectives in the Gulf is as important as the military’s drive and valor on the battlefield.”

Above all, we as a people need to recognize that we have direct impact--whether for good or ill--on the course of events in the Gulf and will bear a large measure of responsibility for the ultimate outcome of the conflict. All of us, but particularly those inclined to continue opposing the war, need to face the consequences of the policy choices we make.