The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news in the Persian Gulf War this Thursday, France's president and Britain's commander in the Gulf said a ground war is inevitable. U.S. jets shot down two more Iraqi planes heading for Iran. In other news, there was an IRA mortar attack on the residents of Britain's prime minister. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, we go to the question of when to move the Gulf War to the ground with reports from Saudi Arabia, an exchange on Capitol Hill today, and our own debate among Sen. William Cohen, Congressman Les Aspin, Gen. William Odom and military analyst Edward Luttwak. We close tonight with Charlayne Hunter-Gault's conversation with a marine sergeant major in Saudi Arabia. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The President of France said today a ground war against Iraq would begin soon. Francois Mitterrand told French TV journalists the ground battle promises to take place in coming days, in any case sometime this month. He said it is inevitable and it will be very hard. A similar evaluation came from the commander of British forces in the Gulf. He spoke at a briefing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

FRANCOIS MITTERRAND: We're now moving on to the next phase in this battle, which is going to be the ground war, probably the most difficult and certainly the final phase of the war.

REPORTER: Is it fair to say though, in summary, that you have been saying that there's quite a lot of work to do and also that you feel a land war is inevitable? That seems to be the tenor of your remarks.

FRANCOIS MITTERRAND: Well, I'm expressing a personal opinion now. I believe the land war is inevitable, yes. I believe we're dealing with a man who uses human life as a currency to buy what he wants to achieve in this world, and therefore, regardless of what any of his generals may see as being inevitable consequences of a land war, I believe he'll press ahead with it.

MR. LEHRER: A U.S. military spokesman in Saudi Arabia said there were no differences between the U.S. and British commanders on the subject of a ground war, but Marine Brig. Gen. Richard Neal said, "I don't think I would attach the word 'inevitable' to it". Defense Sec. Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell left tonight for Saudi Arabia. They plan to meet with the U.S. commanding general, Norman Schwarzkopf, and Saudi Arabian officials. It has been reported they will discuss the timetable for a ground war. Cheney and Powell appeared before the House Armed Services Committee this morning. Powell said the war was far from over. There was a commentary on Baghdad Radio today that said Iraq looked forward to the start of ground fighting. It said tens of thousands of Americans will be killed. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: American warplanes shot down at least two more Iraqi planes headed for Iran today. The downed plane were Soviet made SU-22 fighter bombers. The American fighters also hit a third SU-22. It's being listed as a probable kill. A total of 134 Iraqi planes have made it into Iran, including 11 over the past 24 hours. The U.S. central command also revised yesterday's possible downing of two Iraqi MiG 21's to confirmed kills. That brings to 33 the number of Iraqi planes downed in air to air combat with allied jets. A carrier launched Navy F-18 was lost over the Persian Gulf today in a non-combat-related accident. The pilot is listed as missing. The battleship Wisconsin fired its 16 inch gun at Iraqi targets. The World War II battle wagon lobbed eleven 2000 pound shells into an Iraqi artillery battery in Kuwait. Baghdad was hit again by allied bombs last night. Iraqi officials claim 22 civilians were killed in the raids. Former Attorney Gen. Ramsey Clark is in Baghdad today. The long time anti-war activist said he had seen many civilian casualties. Iraqi censors allowed the broadcast of these pictures showing allied bomb damage in the capital. One target was a key bridge over the Tigress River. A major section of the structure was knocked out apparently by a sea launched Cruise missile. In air to air combat yesterday, a U.S. Reserve pilot operating one of America's most controversial planes brought down an Iraqi helicopter. We have a report by television pool reporter Jim Wooten.

MR. WOOTEN: The A-10 is such an unglamorous plane it's called a wart hog. It's slow, technologically outdated, with no combat record and very, very few friends in Congress. But it's killing a lot of enemy tanks these days and yesterday for the first time an A-10 piloted by Air Force Capt. Bob Swain scored the plane's first air to air kill, an Iraqi helicopter over Kuwait. Using the revolving cannon in the A-10 nose, it fires 70 sounds per second, Capt. Swain destroyed the copter from almost a mile away.

CAPT. SWAIN: It's not a pretty airplane, as you can see, but the 30 millimeter gun is probably the best gun built that we could. That's what the airplane was built on. It was built around the gun to start with.

MR. WOOTEN: In civilian life, he flies bigger and faster planes for USAir, but he loves the hog for its stability and its survivability.

CAPT. SWAIN: We had one land with no hydraulics, pretty well shot up, which I think they're going to show you. It can take a lot of damage and it can still come back and maybe fight another day, or at least get that asset of the pilot back to the friendly side, which is real good.

MR. WOOTEN: This is the plane. Yesterday on a mission similar to Capt. Swain's its right wing was shredded by something, probably a missile, and yet its pilot was able to fly it home. Only one A- 10 and its pilot have been lost thus far, and those who had discounted its capabilities in combat may now have second thoughts.

MR. MacNeil: Air Force officials said a team of A-10s also flew a successful mission against a dozen Iraqi military sites on Wednesday night. They said preliminary reports showed several missile launchers were destroyed and others were heavily damaged.

MR. LEHRER: An American was shot to death in Turkey today. He was a civilian employee at a Turkish air base, identified as 44 year old Bobby Eugene Mozelle of Detroit. His sister said he was an accountant for a company that provided services to the air base. A left wing group claimed responsibility for the killing. It said Turkish bases cannot be used for the bloody games of U.S. imperialism. The same group has claimed responsibility for several bombings in Turkey since the start of the Gulf War. Police in Athens, Greece today de-fused a bomb planted under the car of a French embassy employee. The car was parked near an American school. The incident came one day after the bombings of an American bank and another French-owned car in Athens. In London, the IRA claimed responsibility for a mortar attack on No. 10 Downing Street and the British Foreign Office. The war cabinet was meeting at No. 10 Downing at the time. After the attack, the IRA released a statement saying, "As long as nationalists rule, then the British cabinet will have to meet in bunkers." We have a report from Robin White of Independent Television News.

MR. WHITE: This was a well planned attack aimed at the center of government. On fire the van used to launch mortars at 10 Downing Street while the war cabinet was in session. An ITN camera was recording outside the front door when the blast rocked the building. Over the top of the building, a plume of smoke from the blast, one mortar landed in the garden of No. 10 and exploded, blowing a deep crater in the lawn, and smashing dozens of windows. The other two failed to go off. Two men were seen running awayfrom the van, which appears to have been stopped in a precise spot to launch the bombs. There's no doubt this attack had been well planned, the mortars aimed at a precise angle through a hole cut in the roof. Finding that spot would have taken weeks of surveillance. Police immediately moved in to clear an area stretching up to a mile in each direction. Nobody knew whether there were more bombs or booby trap devices inside the area.

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Go back up the street. It is not safe. Move.

MR. LEHRER: Police said four people were treated for minor injuries. Prime Minister Major and other cabinet officers were not hurt. This afternoon, Major spoke to parliament about the attack.

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR: I think it is clear from the timing of the attack this morning that does suggest it was a deliberate attempt this morning both to kill the cabinet and to do damage to a democratic system of government. It failed, nor in any circumstances could it possibly have succeeded. It is about time they learn democracies cannot be intimidated by terrorism and we rightly treat them with contempt.

MR. LEHRER: In Belfast this evening, the IRA said the attack had been planned before Major took over from Margaret Thatcher last November.

MR. MacNeil: King Hussein's comments continued to generate controversy today. Yesterday the Jordanian monarch attacked the United States and its allies for waging what they called an unjust war against Iraq. He called it a war against all Arabs and Muslims. Pro-Iraqi sentiment was evident in the Jordanian Town of Ramtha today. Demonstrators waving posters of Saddam Hussein and King Hussein attacked a convoy of food trucks headed for Saudi Arabia. In Washington, Sec. of State James Baker said it was very sad that the king omitted any reference whatsoever to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in the speech. He spoke at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

SEC. BAKER: We try to understand the pressure that the King is under and he is under quite a big of pressure. We intend to keep lines of communication open to the King, notwithstanding the fact that he's on the wrong side and we have a major disagreement here with him. We -- when we look at alternatives, we don't see what we perceive to be a particularly pretty picture, alternatives to the King. And therefore, we would not -- we would think that it's important to keep our lines of communication open and to make it clear to him and to that government that we fundamentally disagree with that position.

MR. MacNeil: White House Spokesman Roman Popaduke said the administration was not considering cutting off aid to Jordan, despite the disagreement with the King. In Egypt, an anti-war demonstration turned violent today. Police used clubs to break up a group of about 50 protesters marching to the presidential palace. Two protesters were slightly injured and one arrested. It was Egypt's first anti-war demonstration since fighting began three weeks ago.

MR. LEHRER: Defense Sec. Cheney said today turmoil within the Soviet Union threatened arms control agreements. He said the Soviet economy was collapsing and that meant increased unrest and perhaps even civil war. He told the House Armed Services Committee the Soviets were not showing good faith in arms negotiations.

SEC. CHENEY: The prospects for arms control are in doubt. We have not yet completed a START agreement. We thought we've been close on a number of occasions. We have had sessions within the last few days here in Washington between U.S. and Soviet negotiators. There will be additional sessions this week in Geneva, but we've not yet been able to come to closure on a strategic arms agreement. We hope we will be able to complete that in the near future.

MR. LEHRER: The Energy Department announced plans to reorganize the nation's atomic weapons plants today. Facilities will be made smaller and less expensive, and there will be a greater emphasis on environmental and health safeguards. Energy Sec. James Watkins said the plan will take decades to complete.

MR. MacNeil: A new president was sworn into office in Haiti today. The Rev. Jean Bertrand Aristid was elected by a landslide in December in the first democratic vote in Haiti's history. The 37 year old leftist priest took the presidential oath five years to the day after the fall of the DuValier dictatorship. In a ceremony without incident, Aristid promised economic justice in the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, and said he would prosecute corrupt officials and remnants of DuValier's dreaded militia, the Ton Ton Makut.

MR. LEHRER: Lynn Martin was unanimously confirmed today as the U.S. Sec. of Labor. The Senate vote was 94 to nothing for the former Illinois Congresswoman. She is expected to be sworn in in the next few days to replace Elizabeth Dole, who left to become head of the American Red Cross. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the question of when to move the Persian Gulf War to the ground and a conversation with a Marine Sergeant Major in Saudi Arabia. FOCUS - FIGHTING ON FOOT

MR. MacNeil: Our major focus tonight is the timing of a ground campaign in the Gulf. As we reported, both the president of France and the British commander in the Gulf said a land war is inevitable and will be necessary to dislodge the regular Iraqi troops from their heavily fortified positions along the Saudi-Kuwait border. Repeated bombing raids on those positions as well as against Iraq's elite Republican Guard dug in along the Northern border of Kuwait are intended to soften up the enemy. But it's difficult to determine just how effective that campaign has been. Nik Gowing of Independent Television News explains why.

MR. GOWING: In the desert scrub, it has become a game of cat and mouse. The first idea of the effect of allied bombing on Iraqi ground forces around Kuwait has come from these pictures taken by French Jaguar bombers of apparent Iraqi tanks and artillery emplacements. The smoke suggests allied successes, but without military analysis being made public, an accurate assessment of what has and has not been hit is impossible. Already allied commanders are conceding that some tanks may be wooden decoys and that some smoke is not from bomb damage but from oil set ablaze by Iraqi troops to deceive allied intelligence.

GROUP CAPT. NALL IRVING, RAF: There is the possibility of either establishing that there's a decoy as you go into a dive or if in doubt, when it comes to killing the tank, going for it anyway, so there will be an element of waste here and he will achieve his ambition to a certain extent to deflect us away from real targets, but I don't think it's going to be a major problem.

MR. GOWING: And beneath the desert lie further deceptions. Republican Guards not dug in rudimentary dug-outs but sophisticated, prefabricated underground quarters, designed by British consultants seven years ago. The engineers say such bunkers to house up to 1200 troops a time can be built in just seven to ten days. First, bulldozers excavate a pit up to 50 feet deep and three to four hundred yards long. Army lorries then bring in many hundreds of prefabricated concrete rings, built and stored over recent months. The British design calls for a main corridor, with more than a dozen separate living chambers branching off. Each is self-contained, has its own ventilation and air conditioning system, and can accommodate 100 soldiers sealed behind blast doors. In the biggest bunkers, there is also a command post, sealed water and food stores, a sick bay, kitchens, an armory and decontamination room. All this behind six inch thick blast doors shipped four years ago from Switzerland. That structure in itself is not bomb proof, even if encased in sand. But British engineers say impenetrability is achieved by a two foot thick concrete slab just below the desert surface. This slab is designed to detonate incoming bombs and missiles, thus protecting the troops and hardware below. By extending up to 30 feet beyond the edge of the complex, the slab is designed to stop incoming artillery shells coming in low, something the battleship Missouri is now trying to do to Iraqi bunkers on the Kuwait coast. In short, the British designers say such bunkers are tough enough to withstand a 10 kiloton bomb and a nuclear attack.

COLIN CROFT, Federation of Nuclear Shelter Consultants: A nuclear air burst in itself would describe the strength of these units. They can withstand up to seven or eight on the Richter Scale. Carpet bombing by the B-52s is okay, but you've got to get to the unit, themselves. The two foot thick reinforced concrete slab, as I say, is a detonation slab. It will take most of the power out of any weapon that's thrown at it.

MR. GOWING: So it's virtually impenetrable?

MR. CROFT: Almost, yeah.

MR. GOWING: Can these bunkers be detected when all that's visible on the surface are the tiny air grills for each chamber, and a camouflaged entrance? But as troops would remain inside for long periods and keep radio silence, it's unlikely the allies would detect the grills or movement, even if allied armor and infantry were in the immediate vicinity.

MR. MacNeil: In Riyadh today, allied commanders indicated they still are not certain the air campaign against the Republican Guard has been and there was an apparent disagreement on when and if a ground campaign will begin. It's surfaced in separate briefings by American Gen. Richard Neal and Britain's Commander in the Gulf, Lt. Gen. Sir Peter De La Billiere.

GEN. PETER DE LA BILLIERE, Commander, British Forces: This isn't a decision that's just taken one day when Gen. Schwarzkopf rolls out of bed and says we're going to go and mount a land war. This is a very carefully considered decision which he's been looking at for months past and it's going to be based on his judgment as to when the battlefield is in a state to be -- that will be most advantageous to our own ground troops, when he considers that the air war has reached its peak of effectiveness, and it'll also take into account a wide variety of other factors such as weather conditions and light conditions. I've discussed this on many times with Gen. Schwarzkopf and there's no doubt about it, we are of one mind as to the timing, the conditions that should influence the timing of that decision. I'm quite sure that Gen. Schwarzkopf will discuss with me the date which he finally decides to go on, but I don't expect to disagree with him, because generally speaking, we're both soldiers, we've both got a lot of experience and we both tend to come to similar military decisions.

REPORTER: Could you give us some -- as far as you're able -- some indication as to how effective you thinkthe air war has been so far and how much more has got to be done? I appreciate you can't be over specific, but some sense of how much more has got to be done, especially with regard to the Republican Guard, which seems to be one of the kind of touchstones for any land offensive.

GEN. PETER DE LA BILLIERE, Commander, British Forces: Yes. We really want to ensure that the Republican Guard and, indeed, all the ground forces have been reduced to a state where they cannot produce, cannot present an effective and cohesive opposition to our own ground troops, where we've destroyed sufficient equipment and sufficient logistic support to prevent them from fighting confidently. And when that moment has arrived, that will be the time when the ground forces go in.

REPORTER: Is there a lot to do on that? I mean, are we talking weeks, months?

GEN. DE LA BILLIERE: I don't really want to give that -- talk about that point, because obviously that's something that Saddam Hussein would dearly like to know himself.

REPORTER: In summary, you have been saying that there's quite a lot of work to do and also that you feel a land war is inevitable, that seems to be the tenor of your remarks.

GEN. DE LA BILLIERE: Well, I'm expressing a personal opinion now and I believe the land war is inevitable, yes. I believe we're dealing with a man who uses human life as a currency to buy what he wants to achieve in this world and therefore, regardless of what any of his generals may see as being inevitable consequences of a land war, I believe he'll press ahead with it.

REPORTER: General, the British commander said today that he believed a ground war was inevitable and that it would be preceded by an unrelenting, I believe he said, air campaign. Is this the U.S. position, that a ground war is inevitable, and are we -- are you going to be stepping up the air campaign as well?

BRIG. GEN. RICHARD NEAL, U.S. Marine Corps: I don't think I would attach inevitable to it. I think we have a campaign plan that we're sticking to. It's going well. It's going better than anticipated, and I'd probably leave it at that. As far as the stepping up of the air campaign, no, I think we're hitting targets throughout the area of operations. We look at it each day. Gen. Schwarzkopf takes a look at what's being struck or what's being offered up to be struck and he makes decisions based on the best assessment at that particular time, so it's a very dynamic process. And to say that all of a sudden we're focusing on one area or another area is really probably a mis-statement, and I think we have to realize that there's just -- it's a very dynamic process, war fighting is, and it's not something that you get in a video game or out of a comic book. Yes, ma'am.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Sir Peter was talking about the approach of softening up the Red Guard before the land war begins so as to limit the casualties on the allied side. In your view, how much - - what has to happen -- how much damage has to be done to the Republican Guards before the land assault begins, land campaign, and what are some of the other elements that you will take into consideration as you weigh when to begin it?

BRIG. GEN. NEAL: Well, that's a good question but obviously, to give you the answer really would be -- I think would be giving aid and comfort to the enemy because I think we would be telling them if we said that once X amount of tanks or X amount of artillery or X amount of this was destroyed this is when we plan to come, and I don't think we really -- I can speak candidly -- we have not attached a percentage of destruction on any one of the forces that will then be the indicator that, in fact, Gen. Schwarzkopf after consulting with the Chairman and the Secretary of Defense and ultimately the President would kick off the land campaign.

REPORTER: General, the British commander today said that talking about this ground offensive which he thought would be inevitable that the actual lines of communication he had with Gen. Schwarzkopf were excellent and that he said that Gen. Schwarzkopf and himself were of a like mind. Are you saying that there is a difference of opinion in not being able to say that there's going to be a ground offensive or the air campaigns will be stepped up?

BRIG. GEN. NEAL: No, no, not in any way, shape or form am I saying there's a difference of opinion, but what I was saying was that I can't give you a time that if a land campaign takes place, when it's going to take place, and where it's going to take place, there's no difference of opinion.

MR. MacNeil: The prospect of a ground war brought an emotional plea from one Congressman listening to the testimony of Sec. of Defense Cheney today. The Congressman is California Democrat Ron Dellums.

REP. RON DELLUMS, [D] California: I believe that many, if not most, of my colleagues fear an escalation of the war in the Persian Gulf and all of its sobering and extraordinary consequences. And I believe that that feeling, that foreboding, ominous feeling that members have with respect to escalation, has to have a voice. It has to be articulated, and I would like to say to you, because we're leaving here and members of Congress are not going to be here for the next 10 days, and you're going on, both of you, a long journey to return to greet the President, and I want to stand, sit here rather and say to you in very direct terms, do not go forward with this escalation.

DICK CHENEY, Secretary of Defense: We are well aware of the responsibility we bear for the conduct. I know that it weighs very heavily on the mind of the President, certainly on Gen. Powell and myself. Our mission to Saudi Arabia that begins tonight is specifically to go spend time with Gen. Schwarzkopf, our commander, and his staff, to review the overall course of the war, to see what steps should come next and to report back to the President. Our hope is that we can wrap it up as soon as possible to minimize the loss of life on all sides. The war can end tomorrow if Saddam Hussein will get out of Kuwait.

MR. LEHRER: Now to four additional varieties of opinion on the question of when to launch a ground war. Congressman Les Aspin, Democrat of Wisconsin, is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee before which Sec. Cheney and Gen. Powell appeared today. Sen. William Cohen of Maine is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They join us from Capitol Hill. Retired Army Gen. William Odom was the director of the national security agency, military strategist Edward Luttwak of the Center For Strategic & International Studies has been a consultant to various departments of government. Gen. Odom, has the time come to move the war to the ground?

GEN. ODOM: I don't have a strong view on that. I was originally for not initiating a war, of having a defensive position in Saudi Arabia, but once the decision was made, I argued there's a logic that you have to follow and stay with. We've essentially turned those choices over to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the commanders in the field, and I don't think we can be very helpful to them in trying to tell them when to go to war. I've been somewhat puzzled at the view of those who think that we can get away with bombing only. I would like to see that turn out to be the case, but it clearly looks like it will not be. And once you've signed up with starting bombing, I think you have to see it through based on the calls that the commanders in the field make. They have the best information. I don't have enough information to make that judgment. I can cite a few things that suggest that it probably will go forward fairly early. I think there's a real concern about how much air munitions we have to continue an air war over there indefinitely. Second, I think there's the weather factor. Third, I think there's the factor of shakiness in some of the coalition members, not least the Soviet Union, judging from a number of remarks that have been made during the last few days.

MR. LEHRER: So you think it's coming and that probably sooner rather than later?

GEN. ODOM: I would be terribly surprised if it does not come sooner rather than later.

MR. LEHRER: So the French president, Francois Mitterrand, said exactly the same thing, probably by the end of the month. That does not stun you?

GEN. ODOM: Not at all. In fact, I've been suggesting that was a likely time since last October.

MR. LEHRER: And nothing's happened to change your mind?

GEN. ODOM: Nothing's changed my mind on that.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Aspin, what's your view of what's coming and when is it coming?

REP. ASPIN: I think it depends on the answer to two questions. The first question is somebody's got to decide that, in fact, air power can't do it alone. That's the first thing that has to be decided. If that's decided, then the second question is, at what point does more bombing from the air lead to diminishing returns, in other words, when are you out on the flat of the curve, when are you expending more ammunition and getting little return? When you've answered those two questions, then when you said that those two questions are true, then is the time for the ground attack.

MR. LEHRER: What is your -- what do you sense to be the answers to those questions tonight? Are there answers?

REP. ASPIN: I don't know what the answers are. I mean, I think you really have to be awfully close to the intelligence people to know what intelligence they're getting. Part of it's a judgment call. I think that we're talking about an art not a science in making these judgments, but essentially, I don't think anybody in the public is going to have the kind of information that can make the judgment. I don't think Congressmen are. I don't think the press is. I don't think any of us are. But I know what the questions are. Once you get the answers to those questions and then mix in a little bit of your own feeling about it, because, as I say, it is an art, not a science, then somebody's got to make the decision.

MR. LEHRER: As Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, you don't have a feeling that a ground war is inevitable, that that decision has been made?

REP. ASPIN: No, I don't. I think that in my judgment was, from the beginning was that some kind of a ground war would eventually have to happen. I was skeptical of those who thought that air war would do it alone. I remain that way now. I think that's -- I haven't seen anything that caused me to change my mind.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Cohen, how do you read this tonight?

SEN. COHEN: Well, I think there's much that we can agree upon, namely that the President and his military advisers are the ones in the best position to make the kind of decisions that have to be made. I would add other factors, however. I know that Gen. Odom, in fact, has pointed out a number of conditions that he's pointed to, weather conditions, but I think that that ought not to be the driving factor. We have a number of weeks, a month and a half at least, before the weather turns so warm to make it more difficult to conduct a ground operation. Secondly, he pointed to the shakiness of the coalition. I can't think of anything that would be shakier to the coalition than to lose the support of the American people if were to suffer prematurely large casualties in our infantry. So I think in addition to the two categories mentioned by Congressman Aspin, the two decisions that have to be made, I would factor in what are the levels of casualties likely to be, cost here, are we to incur if we go forward at this time, or in the imminent future. I think that has to be one of those factors, in addition to ones that Les mentioned.

MR. LEHRER: Senator, a high level military official at the Pentagon had a background briefing today for some members of the press, and he said that it was really at this point almost a political decision, based on that issue that you just raised, that the President is going to have to decide based on what military information is brought to him what the country can stand at any given time. Is that legitimate?

SEN. COHEN: Well, there are a number of factors. Obviously, a military decision is one that he will take the most into account, but in addition to that, you have to consider what the political dimensions are internationally, within the coalition, and external to the coalition as well as here at home. There are those who believe that the pressure being generated in countries such as Egypt, Jordan, perhaps Syria, Morocco, other countries, is enough to force an acceleration of the timetable. I believe that would be a mistake. I think you have to weigh the domestic problems in those countries against the domestic problems that we have here. If we were to have several thousand casualties almost immediately in a ground offensive, I think that that would be far more difficult for the President to contend with than the international political problems that are obviously surfacing right now, but yes, politics, the political factors, obviously, will have part of the equation or be part of the equation that the President will take into account.

MR. LEHRER: Now Ed Luttwak, you've argued from the beginning on this program a couple of times that there may not really be an inevitable necessity to go on the ground, that this could be done by air, possibly alone. Do you still feel that way?

MR. LUTTWAK: Air has not seriously been tried. This is a matter of amazement to me, but from the beginning, everybody understood that bombing ground forces, armored forces, or infantry dug in would be ineffectual. In my own testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, I felt embarrassed at repeating this obvious point. Air would work against the supply, against the trucks bringing the food and water. Now it's amazing that even the main lines of communications according to public information were not seriously attacked into the first day of the war, whereas, the Republican Guards were attacked from the first night. I'm afraid that if somebody wants to experiment with whether air war can or cannot work, he should not give this to ground officers wholly committed to ground offensive as the General said from the beginning. We have not -- the same beautiful A-10 aircraft that achieves with difficulty the destruction of two or three tanks will destroy hundreds of trucks. Nobody can keep 500,000 troops in the desert without feeding them all the time. The stories you ran that they have six months of food with each unit, if that is true, then the logistic capability of Iraq, its ability is so great that we should stop the war and ask Saddam Hussein to take over the feeding of the universe. You can stock food for six months for 30 scientists in Antarctica, not for 500,000 troops which have been moving around. This information has to be spurious. The other thing, incidentally, here we are talking about a great offensive into Iraq. I've heard not a word about what we do to get out of Iraq.

MR. LEHRER: Well, that's another whole --

MR. LUTTWAK: The whole perspective is now -- it's not for me to reveal here the sortie numbers allocated to attacking ineffectually to me mysteriously the ground forces, as opposed to the numbers against logistics, or the tonnages. Let me just say that he didn't start till quite late and the effort was fractional. They have a total inventory of trucks. You can go and reduce the total inventory. Should trucks go truck hunting? Only if you have hunted trucks and you wiped 'em out, which is far easier than attacking ground forces, will you be able to know whether the air could do it or not.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask Congressman Aspin, does what Mr. Luttwak is saying jive with what you have been briefed about?

REP. ASPIN: In some regards. Let me just say that I think that, in fact, there have been a lot of targeting on the supply lines, and I think that there has been from the very beginning a very, very systematic effort to cut off the supply of ammunition, food, water to not only the Republican Guards, but the rest of the units in Kuwait. I also believe that -- let me just say that the estimates, the CIA estimates, of the amount of tonnage of supplies that these forces need when they're just, in effect, holed up, as they are, in other words, they're not moving, they're not shooting, they're not, they don't need much POL, they don't need much ammunition, that the tonnage that they require is pretty small compared to the capacity of the roads and the networks that you have bringing the possibility of bringing supplies down to them. So I sympathize with what Ed Luttwak is saying here. It's a tougher problem. I think that we are still clearly in terms of the bombing campaign, in terms of big pay off from more bombing, at some point we're going to hit the flat of the curve where the more bombing starts to bring decreasing returns, and that's the time to start about the ground forces.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask Gen. Odom about that. You're the one -- you believe that we're about ready to go to a ground war. So you would think we've reached the flat of the curve, to use the Congressman's expression.

GEN. ODOM: I don't know. That's just a rough guess, but I would just say about Ed Luttwak's position that the way -- he always states the issue in a way that nobody can disprove of, and he changes the terms by suggesting that we haven't been trying interdiction bombing on supplies, and he doesn't seem to realize the traffic ability the desert allows you to diversify the routes, send single trucks separately at night. He doesn't point out that there was six months time in which with very limited logistics capabilities to stockpile vast amounts of capabilities, so I -- you know, I think this is an argument that he's able to make and to position himself in so that we really can't bring it to any kind of test and --

MR. LEHRER: Let's have Sen. Cohen.

GEN. ODOM: It's not very helpful advice.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Cohen, you believe that there is still a lot of work that could be done by bombing, is that right?

SEN. COHEN: Indeed I do. I think we have just begun. We have to keep in mind the fact that we have been at this only three weeks. We have flown some 50,000 missions or sorties altogether, not all combat nonetheless, but we suffered roughly 50 casualties. The one that Saddam Hussein wants, he wants to inflict large casualties upon the American and the allied forces. We ought not to accommodate him. We ought not to reward him at this time. We have a lot of work to do and I believe based upon the information I've received we have enough munitions certainly for the next several weeks and even beyond that to continue to pound various artillery sites, to take out trucks, take out the supply lines, to continue to cut him off as such. I would take those berms and those bunkers and I would turn them into prisons of sand, and I would keep those men holed up for as long as possible before ever committing ground forces.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask Gen. Odom this basic question that the Senator mentioned a moment ago and that is the stated aim, one of the stated aims of the President's policy from the very beginning was to accomplish militarily whatever had to be accomplished in Iraq, Kuwait, et cetera, in the Persian Gulf, with the minimum American casualties. When does that become a military problem and when does it move to the political area?

GEN. ODOM: Well, that has to be his judgment but let me point out that there are some variables in the casualties. There is in war a synergism between air power, that is fire support, and maneuver forces on the ground. There could be a point at the bombing which you start beginning to lose that synergism if we and I think if Sen. Cohen goes back and looks at the stockpiles and he looked at the target that you showed in the early part of this segment that that's a very difficult target which can't be dealt with with the kinds of munitions we have in large amounts, and the smart munitions which might have some prospect of defeating many of these targets are not in such great supply, that we could find ourselves in a position where we don't have the air power to give the most effective support for ground campaigns, so I think there are some factors here which I can only speculate about and only Gen. Schwarzkopf and the staffs out there can judge with any kind of accuracy, those are the factors I think that have to dictate this.

MR. LEHRER: But I asked a question. I asked it very awkward. Let me restate it. As a professional military man, and let's say the military makes a conclusion that the time is now to go ahead and do a ground war, how important do you believe the factor of American casualties should be? How big a factor should that be in the President's decision, ultimate decision, whether to go with the military advisers or wait? You heard what Congressman Aspin said and what Sen. Cohen said. Sen. Cohen said the whole thing could go down the tubes if there are too many American casualties

GEN. ODOM: If he's going to make that the dominant factor, then he has to change his strategy. You see, we went through this debate earlier and Sen. Cohen voted for starting the war. Now once you've started, I think you have to stay with the logic of it and no one suggested at the time that there would not be considerable numbers of casualties. If you change your strategy and leave him in Kuwait and just bomb as a sort of enhancement of the sanctions, that'san option, but that's not the same strategy that we've heard from the White House thus far.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Luttwak, is the General right, you either go to war or you don't go to war? Pres. Bush said at the beginning, we're going to go to war, so you go to war, you go the whole way or you don't go?

MR. LUTTWAK: What the General proposes is a full reversion, we overdid it in Vietnam in civilian control down to tactical targeting, so now we have to go back to 1914. The war begins, leave it to the General, without having a plan for how to get out of Iraq, you can have a splendid arm, a defensive in, but everybody comes back to get the medals in Washington, and then the hand grenades start being thrown without a government in Baghdad, unless you make one. You put somebody in power in Baghdad; he gets killed, no plan for after. Let's have the battle. The other thing is Saddam Hussein's own strategy. How does he keep his men together? How does he keep his henchmen together, the fellows around him, is by promising them a scheme. I don't believe in the Hitler comparison but Adolf Hitler kept promising these people that the wonder weapons will come along and change the course of the war. Saddam Hussein has been promising the ground offensive. If now we said to him we will disappoint that British general who's clearly itching to go, I mean, to become a Montgomery, we will disappoint him, and we will disappoint Saddam Hussein, he will not have a ground war, and we start sending the reservists home and maintaining a defensive force, and we shall continue bombing, I hope correct bombing, instead of the ineffectual ground force bombing, and at that point his strategy collapses, that is, the scheme with which he holds his authority among his people, the one thing he holds to them is the ground war where Americans get killed. We can take it right away from him. I would like to ask Sen. Cohen's view on that.

GEN. ODOM: There are real flaws to this argument. No. 1, I didn't say that we not subordinate the political judgment. I said we obviously can we if they change the objectives. And No. 2, if Mr. Luttwak was so enthusiastic about this kind of an issue of not presenting him the ground option sooner or later, he should have made that case against going to war in the first place last fall.

MR. LUTTWAK: I did. I did. I did before the Senate and I did before the House and the Joint Economic Committee and this program.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Cohen, you're on.

SEN. COHEN: Let me verify that. Mr. Luttwak did, indeed, along with Gen. Odom, both gentlemen testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in opposition to going to war or the use of force, so I think they are consistent in that regard. I would point out -- and I have an enormous amount of respect for Gen. Odom and I don't want it to be misconstrued -- but Gen. Odom, when he testified indicating he was opposed to the use of force and thought that sanctions should be allowed to work for some six months to a year longer, but also pointed out that if we did use force, we had a number of problems which cast some doubt upon the viability of that and he listed among those particular issues the kind of smart munitions that he's now talking about, but also indicated that we didn't have a logistical supply line for heavy armor, deep operation or penetration operations in the sand. It seems to me that may very well call into question whether we should be going to a war in the immediate days or whether we're going to need longer periods of time to build up that kind of logistical supply to which the general pointed out was not there at the time he testified, but I think that really we ought not to get bogged down at this particular point to say, well, once you go to war, you must go -- you must go all out -- that's not really the objective. We have to finish it on terms successful to us. But there are no absolutes to say just go to war and finish it. You could turn to I suppose tactical nuclear weapons, which the President has ruled out. You could turn to other types of activities which we find offensive at this particular point, so I think that we have to, indeed, keep our eye on the result, and that is to conclude this war successfully in terms of the United States and allied victory on terms in which we have the lowest possible casualties. And that means in my judgment waiting on the ground force --

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Aspin, the lowest possible casualties, should that be the No. 1 objective at this point?

REP. ASPIN: I think the answer is yes. I mean, when you're talking about the timing of the ground war and whether a ground war is necessary, I think that lowest possible U.S. casualties is the driving factor. I would say, and also to follow up on the point that Bill Cohen here is making, is that there are different kinds of ground wars. We talk as if there is one, "the" ground war here. There are several kinds of ground wars. I mean, there is a ground war that goes directly at the defensive positions that Iraq has dug in there, which I think most of us would agree would be not the best way to go about it. There's another ways to go about it which encourages the Iraqi forces to come out of their defensive positions. I think that the plan that, the contingency plan that Gen. Schwarzkopf and Gen. Powell have here for if the war is necessary to go to a ground war, they have in mind low casualties in this ground war too. I mean, there certainly is going to be more casualties in a ground war than in an air war, but there's a way to do a ground war which is lower in casualties --

MR. LUTTWAK: Low in casualties until the armor stops rolling and then the guerrilla attacks begin.

MR. LEHRER: Gentlemen, we have to go. Thank you all four very much. CONVERSATION

MR. MacNeil: Finally a Charlayne Hunter-Gault conversation from the Gulf. Tonight she talks with a Marine Sgt. Major Fred Pattee, who has been in Saudi Arabia since August.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: When last we spoke, you were betting on whether or not there'd be a war and now there is a war. How different is life as a result of that?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: A sense of urgency came back to what we're doing over here and I've got to say that my Marines have really, really reacted marvelously. You know, everybody's pulling together. They've got the aircraft flying 24 hours a day and the pilots especially, I didn't have much faith in the young pilots when we first started because they just act like -- in my views -- a lot of times they were very, very immature, but they have, they have really grown up almost overnight and they're out there doing what they get paid to do and I couldn't be prouder of them.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What was the mood like as, as you say, this very young generation of Marines had actually confronted the battlefield?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: You couldn't touch those guys with a ten foot pole. They were all walking about 20 feet above the deck. They were really, really up, and that went on for the first week or so and then the adrenalin started wearing off and people started getting into, hey, this is for real, it's going to take a while, so let's get down to business, and people, people really turned into professionals within the first three or four days.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What's the biggest problem now, in your view?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: One of the things that I'm experiencing now is we have people that are in receipt of orders to go to critical billets back in the United States, drill instructor duty, recruiting duty, that are coming and saying I've got these orders and I have to go back and do these kind of orders, can you do anything to get those things cancelled so I can stay here with my unit and carry out the mission. I've got more of those people coming to me now than people coming, trying to find ways to get home to their families.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why do you think that is?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: Well, when a unit goes into combat, everybody is a part of that and they develop a feeling of togetherness. You could call it male bonding, if you want. I just think it's a sense of belonging to an organization that's got a mission and everybody feels what they're doing is very important, so they don't want to leave that. They feel that they're more important here than if they went on to something else.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: When we talked in September, you made some comparisons with Vietnam. Do you see any similarities or startling differences now, now that the war is on?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: The one big difference between this war and the last war I was in I think is that we have a definite goal for this war. In Vietnam, people weren't sure what the definite role was. Well, we were going to defend South Vietnam against Communist aggression. That was rather nebulous, and it turned into a real nasty thing where they were just counting bodies as their thing for success. They could go out and capture a piece of terrain and three days later walk off, and go somewhere else, and the bad guys would move in on the piece of terrain and they'd have to go back and take it again. Here I don't think we're going to give up anything that we take. It's going to be more of a conventional type warfare where, you know, we have a definite objective, we're going to seize it, we're going to keep it, and pursue this to the end.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What is it?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: Kuwait. Our President was very clear. He wants Kuwait back with its rightful government and the whole nine yards.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you feel the war is going?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: It's going well. We have been dropping a great deal of ordinance on Iraq, Kuwait, Iraqi positions in Kuwait and the majority of our pilots are coming home. That to me is success.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you tell you they're hitting their targets?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: Oh, yes, they're doing well. That's about all I can tell you. We're not wasting anything up there I don't think.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think there is going to be a ground war?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: Yes. There will be a ground war. I don't think Mr. Hussein is going to throw in the towel and say okay, I'm going to vacate Kuwait and kiss and make up, because he's already, he's already invested too much stuff.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The first major casualties of this conflict have been Marines. What's been the reaction to that?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: The initial reaction that we get is that yes, we're taking casualties, but we're dishing out more than we're taking and that's important. Our people know that we're on the winning side here and some casualties are always going to be taken no matter how low intensity it is or how high intensity it is, you're going to take casualties,but there's a certain level that's acceptable and when it gets above that, that's when you have serious problems?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think it's going to that eventually in your gut? I mean, what does your gut tell you?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: In my gut, I think they're going to get some serious casualties but nothing that -- nothing that's going to get over the point where we're not expecting.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What's your gut tell you about how long this conflict could go on, any idea?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: I'd like to think that this conflict will be over within three to four months, but my gut feeling is this, because of the mind set and all the indications we're getting from Saddam Hussein and his, just the way that he's conducting his war, this could go on for up to a year, maybe two years.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Has it ever entered your mind that the United States could lose this conflict?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: Never.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That the allies could lose this conflict?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: Never.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Anything surprised you about this war so far?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: It shouldn't have surprised me, but I want to say that our reserves that we've brought into this conflict have just performed marvelous -- they're just superb. These guys were basically jerked out of their civilian occupations with a very short notice, given a small amount of training and bingo, they were here, and let me tell you, their morale, their attitude, and their professionalism just makes me, gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling, because these guys have fallen right in with their, you know, with their active duty counterparts, and just picked up and gone for it full blast. They have really, really performed great.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about the anti-war demonstrations back home, are they having any kind of psychological effect?

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: It has definitely not been any kind of a morale factor over here of anybody that I've talked with. It probably bothers our dependents back home more than it does the folks here. I got a letter from my wife the other day and she was just real upset with the protesters, but gee, what can I say? I'm here and she's there. She has to deal with it in her own way and the best I can tell her is just ignore it, go about your business.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Sgt. Major Fred Pattee, thank you for being with us on your birthday.

SGT. MAJOR PATTEE: Thank you. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Air raid sirens sounded tonight in the cities of Riyadh and Dhahran in Saudi Arabia. The air raid began shortly after 6 PM Eastern Time. Television pool cameras spotted two Patriot missiles being launched in Riyadh. The Patriot has been used to intercept incoming Scud missiles from Iraq. It was the 29th missile attack on Saudi Arabia since the war began and the first since Saturday night. It appeared as if at least one Patriot hit its target. Recapping the other major stories of this Thursday, French Pres. Mitterrand and the commander of British forces in the Gulf, both said a ground war was inevitable. Mitterrand said the fighting would start this month. U.S. warplanes shot down two more Iraqi aircraft heading for Iran and in Britain, there was a mortar attack on the residents of British Prime Minister John Major. The Irish Republican Army claimed responsibility. Major was unhurt, but four others were slightly injured. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night with more coverage of the Gulf and our regular political analysts, Gergen & Shields. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.