Advertisement

‘Shameful’ U.S. Policy Helped Set Stage for Gulf War, Levine Says

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITER

Rep. Mel Levine, the only likely Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate to support the Persian Gulf War from the start, said Tuesday that his fellow liberals who opposed combat were blinded by the Vietnam-era dogma that the problem would go away if only the United States would “give peace a chance.”

Levine voted in January to endorse President Bush’s use of force against Iraq, but he decried “our shameful” policy leading up to the Aug. 2 invasion of Kuwait, accusing the Reagan and Bush administrations and the nation’s European allies of “complicity” in allowing Saddam Hussein to develop such a dangerous war machine.

“They pursued unwise policies, forgot sound foreign policy principles, dealt with totalitarian aggressors--and our servicemen and the entire free world paid the price,” Levine said in a address to Town Hall at a Beverly Hills hotel.

Advertisement

But Democrats must share the blame, added Levine, 37, a five-term congressman who is a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee and has one of the most liberal social and environmental voting records in Congress.

“Understanding our complicity is also an indictment against all of us in opposition to the Bush and Reagan policies who did not work harder to make the issue of the Iraqi war machine the No. 1 issue of the 1980s,” he said.

Levine used the address to propose a bipartisan foreign policy based on three key principles: Controlling the flow of arms into the Middle East, including Israel; developing an energy policy to free the United States from dependence on imported oil, and solving the Palestinian problem without jeopardizing Israel’s legitimate security needs.

“Ultimately, a strong and democratic Israel and a vigilant, strong and wise America is the best protection for freedom and peace in the Middle East,” said Levine, who has been in the vanguard of congressional defenders of Israel.

Ever since he voted with President Bush in January to launch war on Iraq, Levine has been dogged by peace activists, including a few on his arrival Tuesday at the Beverly Hilton Hotel. In January, more than 2,000 constituents and others had urged him to oppose the war, and only a few supported his position. But in the past week or so, more people--including congressional colleagues--are saying, “On second thought, you were right,” Levine said.

Levine’s speech came only days after the Democratic state convention in Oakland, where six declared or potential Senate candidates spoke to more than 2,000 of California’s most influential party leaders. But Levine did not attend, citing a conflict with a long-scheduled family event.

Advertisement

Convention delegates wondered whether his absence indicated a lack of zest to enter the race for one of two U.S. Senate contests in 1992, presumably for the full-term seat being vacated by Sen. Alan Cranston. While his views on the war would not have been shared by many activist delegates, Levine would have received considerable attention because of his early position. The other Democratic candidates generally wanted Bush to give more time for economic sanctions against Iraq to work.

But Levine said his decision to pass up the convention was purely a family matter and had no connection with a potential Senate race--”none whatsoever.”

In fact, he told reporters he is actively exploring a Senate candidacy and “I’m receiving a great deal of encouragement.” Levine said he had no deadline for making a decision.

Levine devoted a considerable portion of his speech to explaining or defending his pro-war vote against the backdrop of a political career that was steeped in opposition to the Vietnam War.

Levine said many of his friends and colleagues were amazed at his vote to authorize use of force against Saddam Hussein. “Frankly, what was more amazing was their opposition,” he said. “The arguments of those who opposed the war fail miserably.”

There was an emotional attraction to the idea of avoiding conflict and relying on sanctions, Levine said. “But if five weeks of the most titanic bombings in the history of the world did not dislodge Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, sanctions and diplomacy alone surely would have failed.

Advertisement

“How did many leaders of my forward-thinking party seem to advocate isolationism and appeasement?” he asked.

His liberal critics in Congress, many of whom also got their political baptism in the Vietnam era, were mistaken to equate Bush’s venture into the Middle East with Vietnam, Levine said. The situation really was more akin to threats from Japan and Germany in the late 1930s, he argued.

“Ignoring events and dangers that happen in faraway places with different cultures is not anti-imperialist,” Levine said. “It is isolationism. . . . Isolationism at its worst.”

But Levine said he believes the past six months have caused many Democrats to re-examine their view of America’s role, resulting in a “reawakening by Democratic leaders of America’s proper role as leader of the free world.”

Advertisement