The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. The Gulf crisis leads the news this Monday. America's Roman Catholic Bishops called for sharply limiting the use of force by the U.S. in the Gulf. Egypt's President Mubarak said his troops would not take part in any invasion of Iraq. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff's in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: On the NewsHour tonight, the Gulf is again our main focus. We look at the growing debate over whether and under what conditions the U.S. would go to war. We get political, military, and religious perspectives from five people. Then on Veterans Day we get a series of conversations asking Americans what they think about the possibility of U.S. troops going into combat. Tonight Veterans Administration Official Frederick Downs, Jr. Finally, a Jim Fisher essay on observing Veterans Day.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: The White House today promised to work closely with Congress on the Gulf but said President Bush might order military action on his own. Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater was responding to warnings from Democratic leaders over the weekend that it's up to Congress to decide whether to go to war. Fitzwater said, "We have no intention of leaving the Congress out but," he added, "there are always hnse unforeseen kinds of provocations that might result in having to move first." The nation's Roman Catholic Bishops called for strict limits on the use of U.S. military force in the Gulf today. In a letter to Sec. of State Baker, the Bishops said the administration should stay the course of persistent, peaceful, and determined pressure against Iraq. The author of the letter, Archbishop Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, had this to say.

ARCHBISHOP MAHONY: We do like to raise up the criteria and we really feel that they're going to be looked at, that the ethical moral dimensions are part of this debate, and that there really has to be an ethical basis for launching an offensive forceful action.

REPORTER: Do you see one yet?

ARCHBISHOP MAHONY: I don't. One of those criterias is that this must be a last resort, and I do not foresee that, in fact, we have exhausted all the United Nations sanctions so far, and I think those steps will have to be taken before force is considered.

MR. MacNeil: The Bishops who are meeting in Washington voted by 249 to 15 to endorse the letter. We'll hear more from Archbishop Mahony and others about the Gulf crisis right after this News Summary. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: A key member of the anti-Iraq coalition softened its position today. Egypt's President, Hosne Mubarak, said that his troops would not participate in an invasion of Iraq. But he said they would go into Kuwait if necessary to serve as a peacekeeping force if Iraq is pushed out. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein said he does not think the world is united against him. He was asked about it during an interview yesterday with Britain's Independent Television News.

SADDAM HUSSEIN: [Speaking through Interpreter] To say that the world is unified or united against Iraq is, indeed, not a correct thing to say. This is not just our impression; in the statements of the press of the United States and Britain's statements issued by parties in the United States and Britain, they have felt sort of voicing out their concerns that the unity against Iraq is perhaps being, suffering from -- the importance on the legal terms in which they base their unity with regard to the Iraqi action.

MS. WOODRUFF: Saddam met today with his revolutionary council to discuss a proposal for an Arab summit on the crisis. He said Iraq might attend, but only if Palestinian issues were addressed. Saddam also met with China's foreign minister today. We have a report from Baghdad. It's by Desmond Hammil of Independent Television News.

MR. HAMMIL: A visit by the Chinese has been taken very seriously. The Chinese foreign minister, Mr. Kwin Chen, here with his Iraqi counterpart, Teraq Aziz, is the only ranking minister from the UN Security Council to come to Baghdad. The Iraqis are well aware that of the five permanent members of that council, China is the most likely to balk at supporting military action in the Gulf. Today he wouldn't be drawn on whether China would actually vote for a UN resolution authorizing military action.

SPOKESMAN: China has in this used the avoidance of the use of force and the avoidance of war and to seek a peaceful settlement.

MR. HAMMIL: Iraq insists any solution must be linked to broader Middle East problems, which is why PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat now meets most visiting delegations.

MR. MacNeil: Oil prices fell sharply today on world markets. In New York, prices were down more than $2 a barrel after a sudden glut of supplies appeared on the futures market. The price drop and rumors of lower interest rates sparked a rally on Wall Street. The Dow Jones Average closed with a gain of nearly 52 points.

MS. WOODRUFF: Emperor Akihito formally became Japan's new monarch today. The all day ceremonies were marred by dozens of terrorist attacks. We have a report narrated by Norman Reese of Independent Television News.

MR. REESE: Previous emperors became living gods on ascension to the thrown, but Akihito and his commoner wife, Empress Machiko, pledged to honor a post war constitution that relegates the once all powerful emperor to a mere symbol of the nation. The ceremony was attended by representatives from 150 countries, the Prince and Princess of Wales for Britain, with 18 other royals and 65 heads of state. The ceremony had a controversial ending. The prime minister leading cries of Banzai, Japan's wartime rallying call. It was retained as the traditional acclimation for the emperor. But outside the palace, demonstrators protested that the ceremony harked back to Japan's repressive past. Thirty-seven thousand police were on duty as bombs went off as main line railway stations as well as religious shrines and military camps.

MS. WOODRUFF: One person was injured as a result of the violence. The demonstration did not disrupt the enthronement ceremony.

MR. MacNeil: A cease-fire was declared today in the battle between the Cable News Network and a federal judge, and lawyers for Manuel Noriega. CNN agreed for now not to air tapes of phone calls the deposed Panamanian dictator made to his lawyers from prison. In return, Noriega's defense team will not seek contempt penalties against CNN. A U.S. District Judge in Miami ordered the cable network not to broadcast the tapes last week. CNN is appealing that decision to the Supreme Court. Noriega is awaiting trial on drug and racketeering charges.

MS. WOODRUFF: In France today more than 100,000 high school students marched through the streets of Paris to demand better education. Several hundred protesters smashed windows, set fires and threw stones at police. At least two were arrested. After the march, France's education minister announced an emergency plan to improve the country's high schools. He said the details would be worked out by students and government officials.

MR. MacNeil: In the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin said he and Mikhail Gorbachev have agreed to resolve their biggest dispute. Yeltsin was President of the Russian Republic, the Soviet Union's largest. He wants more power for the Republics. Gorbachev wants to keep some key economic decisions in the hands of the central government. Yeltsin said they agreed to work things out before a treaty between all the Republics is signed, perhaps by December.

MS. WOODRUFF: The actress, Eve Arden, died today. She became nationally known in the 1950s for her hit television series "Our Miss Brooks". Her film credits included "Stage Door" and "Mildred Pierce". Arden often played the wisecracking best friend of the film's heroine. She died of heart failure at her home in Beverly Hills, California. She was 82. That's it for our News Summary. Just ahead on the NewsHour, the debate over US policy in the Gulf, our first in a series of conversations about U.S. troops going into combat, and a Jim Fisher essay. FOCUS - WINDS OF WAR

MR. MacNeil: We begin tonight with a widening debate on whether and under what circumstances the United States might go to war in the Persian Gulf. Our discussion includes the man who drafted today's Roman Catholic Bishops statement urging the President to exercise restraint. He is Archbishop Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, the Chairman of the Bishop's Committee on International Policy. Joining him are former Secretary of State Alexander Haig. He was also the NATO Supreme Commander in his last tour of duty as a professional Army Officer which included a command in Vietnam. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin, Democrat from Wisconsin. Former Navy Secretary James Webb a Marine Corp Officer in Vietnam, a novelist, and Congressional Staff member and the Reverend Jesse Jackson a two time Democratic Presidential Candidate who just won the election as the Shadow U.S. Senator from the District of Columbia. The Reverend Jackson and Congressman Aspin join us from a Studio on Capitol Hill. Archbishop Mahony in essence you appear to be urging the Administration to slow down and consider. Why is that? Doyou and your fellow Bishops think that the Administration is rushing towards war?

ARCHBISHOP MAHONY: Well we support the Administration as well as the United Nations in their efforts to condemn the Iraqi invasion, the taking of hostages the terrorism there. We also support the United Nations efforts to come together in a solidarity movement of nations around the World to curtail and try to turn back that aggression. With respect to increasing the military forces in the area and the danger of going to war we do urge caution. We say there are certain ethical and moral dimensions. We speak as pastors, as teachers not as military or political experts. We do say there are a number of criteria that need to be present to justify war.

MR. MacNeil: Now I have read your letter and I have it here. Let's take you through your criteria one at a time and get our other guests to comment on them. YOur first one is a just war. What is a just war? And how does that apply to this situation?

ARCHBISHOP MAHONY: Well the first the criteria is a just cause. There is that the objective is just. That is that the reason for initiating a military offensive force is justified.

MR. MacNeil: And how do you determine what is a justified war?

ARCHBISHOP MAHONY: Well in this case we are helped along by that United Nations set of sanctions. The acts of the United Nations. The first time in the history of the United Nations that we have had this type of collective response to aggression around the World. And so I think that a just cause is kept on track in this instance by the participation of the member nations and by particularly the Arab participation in that part of the World.

MR. MacNeil: You say in order to meet this just cause criteria U.S. policy would have to clarify its precise objectives, measure them by ethical values and demonstrate they can only be achieved through the use of force. Has that been done yet in your view?

ARCHBISHOP MAHONY: We believe that the real objective of initiating and offensive military action has not been shown at this time. There are a lot of reasons why the United Nations forces present there. We support many of those but we do not believe that has been demonstrated clearly and certainly to the American public that we've now reached a point where those objectives are clear, they are held by people in our country and there us unanimity there.

MR. MacNeil: Alexander Haig how do you respond to the Archbishop on that point. Has a just cause been demonstrated here do you think?

MR. HAIG: Well there is no question about the just cause and I think that the Archbishop has clearly endorsed that there is such a cause. There is not at this juncture a justification for resort to military action. I am very comfortable with that observation. I think President is very comfortable with that observations. The irony of this whole crisis is that to the degree that war become more logical to the same degree we would encourage Saddam Hussein to arrive at a peaceful solution. That is why the last 48 hours of controversy over the force build up seems rather ludicrous to me. The people who have raised these questions should have raised them on the 3rd of August when we started this process. The real issue is that if Mr. Saddam Hussein believes the United States will go to war and is prepared to do so in extremes then the likelihood of his settling peacefully and meeting the conditions of UN Resolution 660 are more logical and more likely. So we can't have it both ways when we join the critics of what the President has done. He has beenexactly right. He said he wants a peaceful solution. He is doing with in his power to achieve one. Now the Bishop's paper today in that sense is helpful because it raises the specter that the logic of war is growing every day, and therefore perhaps mr. Saddam Hussein will understand that?

MR. MacNeil: James Webb do you see the case having been made for using force in this case? Is this a just cause to use the Bishop's criteria.

MR. WEBB: I do not see that case having been made. I would agree to the extent that we can condemn the actions of Saddam Hussein in Kuwait. You can say that it is just to do that but to go beyond that and to go to offensive action I don't see that we have made that. We can justly condemn the actions of the Vietnamese in Cambodia. We can justly condemn the actions of a number of nations around the World and the only way, I would like to say two thing with respect to what General Haig just said. The only way to really measure the logic of a war for the United States to go forward and bear the overwhelming brunt of the casualties is to put it to the elected representatives as it is called for under the Constitution and take a vote. And for those who say people were hesitant about this should have had some condemnation on August 3rd. We didn't know on August 3rd that the President was going to make this dramatic error, a strategic error of dumping so many ground troops in to the desert in Saudi Arabia. There are many ways that you could have taken in order to solve this problem, in order to have separated Saddam Hussein away from the Kuwait problem. To have solved the Kuwait problem first. This is the third time since 1961 that Iraq has made a move on Kuwait and then to have gone after Saddam Hussein later. So I don't think the case has been made and the only way that we as a nation can agree that is has been made is that if there is a vote on it.

MR. MacNeil: Les Aspin you are one of the elected Representatives. Do you think the Archbishop's criteria have been met in terms of this being a just cause that would justify offensive action?

REP. ASPIN: Well I think that the case is there for doing something along those line. Although I think the point is right that we are not at that point yet. In other words I think that the basis for it is there. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, what is has done to Kuwait, the way that is has treated the people. I think is certainly a cause for some kind of action. Now I don't think that we have gotten to the point yet. I agree with Al Haig. We have not gotten to the point yet where you say that you have exhausted all other remedies. But surely the moral cause here is not based on the UN vote. If the cause is right it doesn't matter how many countries support you. If the cause is right it is right in and of itself not based upon some vote in the UN. But I think that basically the cause is right. I think that the votes in the UN are necessary, the vote in Congress is necessary to go to a military offensive and we need to play out some more time before we make that decision.

MR. MacNeil: I'll come back that vote in Congress in just a moment? Mr. Jackson do you think a case has been made that this is a just cause which could justify the U.S. going to war?

MR. JACKSON: I think the case has been made following a UN criteria. For a multilateral force to stop Iran's expansion. Or to protect the security of Saudi Arabia. A case has been made for the multilateral economic embargo to take the profit out of annexing Kuwait and the same case has been made now to take the time to let the economic embargo work. The case has not been made to go on a military offensive on Iraq nor do the same forces that support us in the defensive effort agreed to support us in the offensive effort. If you are going to use UN resolutions as a basis for the criteria for just cause then we must do it seems to me four things. One we must pay the UN the billion dollars we owe them in back dues so they can be more effective. Secondly apply UN resolutions across the board in Lebanon, in the West Bank, in Grenada, Panama, South Africa. And n ow thirdly now that we have moved to an offensive posture Congress ought to be reconvened to debate this matter before the fact in order to maintain its responsibilities relative to the war powers act. And if we in fact are towards an irreversible course toward war we must reconsider the draft. Just as the wealthy must pay their fair share of taxes they must pay their fair share of dues to protect a defined national interest.

MR. MacNeil: Archbishop Mahoney picking up on that last part of reconvening Congress. The next of your criteria is the competent authority. Who has the competent authority to authorize the use of force, the President acting alone, the President and Congress, the President through the United Nations Security Council. What is your answer on that before I go to the others?

ARCHBISHOP MAHONY: Well again we feel very much that we have in place in our constitution in our own War Powers Act a definite way in which that decision is made. It is certainly the involvement of our elected officials. Congressional Leaders and Senators is just vital to this. And I would hope very much and I would hope that the President would want that as well. To hear from those elected officials, to hear their pros and cons to make sure that all of the issues are played out before a mistake might be made.

MR. MacNeil: And what about the United Nations. Do you think the United States will only have moral authority if it has the full backing a vote in the United Nations?

ARCHBISHOP MAHONY: Well I refer to the United Nations because this is such an unprecedented situations where there has been a solidarity of nations around the World almost unanimously to condemn this aggression and to be part of an effort to get Hussein and Iraq out of Kuwait. That has been a very helpful model and one that can serve the world community in the future. And so we would hope that would be part of that decision making.

MR. MacNeil: Let's just go around quickly. Does any body disagree that the Congress should take a vote before military action is taken. General Haig do you agree with that?

MR. HAIG: I disagree with that. That has never been historically a part of our constitutional interpretations. And it wasn't until the War Powers act. Which I think would be judged unconstitutional if put to the test which passed by one vote where this new criteria has become the so called rule of the land. I think that the Commander and Chief, the President of the United States has committed himself to full and total consultation with the Congress but to say that we have to have a vote of that august body before the United States can take appropriate military action is the height of crippling the American Presidency and our foreign policy. And I wish we would do a little more studying of our history on that regard.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Aspin what do you think of that?

REP. ASPIN: Well basically I think that it is a case by case situation. I would never make a broad general statement.

MR. MacNeil: But in this case?

REP. ASPIN:Let me finish in this case the President needs to go to Congress to get a vote on this one.

MR. MacNeil: James Webb?

MR. WEBB: I agree and I think there are other historical considerations that ought to be examined in that context. The first is that we fought two long undeclared wars since the end of World War II. We have not won either of them. A declaration of war creates a totally different environment domestically and internationally regarding the firm intentions of the nations. The idea that the President can take unilateral action is based generally on a notion that you have a treaty arrangement with the country you are defending. We have no treaty in this region and our troops have not been attacked. The only situation in which you can justify action is if your forces are attacked and that is defensive. That is not offensive.

MR. MacNeil: Jesse Jackson you said earlier that you thought Congress should be reconvened and a vote taken.

MR. JACKSON: Well the President can launch a war unilaterally. he can not sustain that war unilaterally. It just makes good sense to have adequate public debate by our federal officials before such an offensive move takes place. After all our national interest is threatened. Our national security is not threatened. Further more now that we are using the UN as a shield for these actions if we move unilaterally on Iraq and lose the coalition that is now in the defensive posture will be a US versus Iraq war. That takes on a whole different overtone that what has been projected so far.

MR. MacNeil: So you think that in addition to a Congressional vote there should be a UN vote before the action?

MR. JACKSON: I say there must be real co- ordination because so far we have used UN resolutions as the shield. And the price we pay now for saying that we have Congressional support and UN support is that they must affirm that support on an offensive war as they have affirmed their support on a defensive posture. I happen to think that so far the multilateral military presence has discouraged Saddam Hussein without question from going further than Kuwait and the economic embargo is in fact working. He has the hotels but no customers, he has the oil wells but no market. It would take some patients and some time to let these economic measures work while we vigorously seek our political alternatives to confrontation.

MR. MacNeil: Let's go back to General Haig. It is three against one here. May be four against one. Let's give you a rebuttle first of all on the Congressional?

MR. HAIG: I read it three. As was pointed out in this particular case a vote should be taken. I don't think that even in World War II we had a declaration of war before military action was taken. We had to defend ourselves just as the President would have to defend himself with out endorsement from the Congress should that occur in a percipitas way. And we can not go ahead and make a condition that such a vote must be taken. Now isn't this a dreadful message to be sending Saddam Hussein tonight on the eve of the President's important visit to the Middle East where the credibility of the Baker and the President's credibility and the United States credibility is at stake. I wish that we could cool it a bit. In the first place you know and I know and our guests here know that there are not enough forces there for the President to make a judgment yet and they are weeks away.

MR. MacNeil: James Webb wanted to come in there?

MR. WEBB: Just as a historical footnote. In World War II it wasn't necessary because they declared War on us and we were in a position of defending ourselves. I mean certainly if Saddam Hussein attacked us we would have the inherit right of self defense. That is not what we are talking about.

MR. MacNeil: General Haig suppose that he doesn't do that suppose he doesn't oblige by attacking and making it easy for President Bush. As Jesse Jackson said would it just make it good sense for President Bush to go and get some resolution from Congress saying yes we would support offensive action if consider it necessary?

MR. HAIG: I would say very detailed and consistent consultation with the Congress is essential. I think that the President has tried to follow that both in his earlier meetings last summer and in a most recent meeting several weeks ago. And thus far there has been a rather broad base of support. Now with the actions of reinforcing this past week the specter of possible conflict has arisen. Actually that specter was there on the second of August and I think as Hodding Carter talked about the wheel of perception and the real wheel. Perception goes up and down every day in this crisis depending who has the last say or who takes the last step. The reality is that we are approaching a logic of war. That is the bad news. The good news as this logic gets clearer to Saddam Hussein he may indeed back off.

MR. JACKSON: It seems to me that President Bush is boxing himself and the rest of us in by increasing so many troops unilaterally. Going from defense to offensive. Second by intensifying the war rethoric and third by putting forth a non negotiable public posture on the question of territory, access to sea and oil prices. If talk is impossible them wart is inevitable. And if it indeed is inevitable it is the question of Congress, the UN and the Draft. You just can not run the price of oil up or run the price of blood of down and not have a fair distribution of land forces in the Persian Gulf.

MR. MacNeil: Les Aspin is the President boxing himself as Jesse Jackson insists?

REP. ASPIN: I think the decision not to go for rotation policy does indicate there is a certain time limit out there beyond which we will not be in there. In other words there is an outer limit to our patients there.

MR. MacNeil: Just to make it clear to everybody the Administration was saying it would rotate the troops after several months to limit the amount of time they spent there but last Thursday when they announced the big build up they said they ended that policy or withdrew it.

REP. ASPIN: Yes and I think that action does say that there is a time limit that we will not be a year from now a year and a half from now sitting here with those numbers of troops sitting here because you can't wait that long with those kind of troops without rotating them out. If you don't have a rotation policy that says that at some out limit you are going to expect this thing to come to a head.

MR. MacNeil: Is that what got you concerned Archbishop Mahoney?

ARCHBISHOP MAHONY: Yes that is one of the factors. It isn't just our own troops. It is the impact of all the peoples in that area. This type of war is going to have a lot of victims not only Iraqis, and American soldiers and members of other forces but innocent people. We don't know what type of war would erupt over there but it one where there could be a huge number of casualties both in Baghdad as well as Kuwait. In fact we could lose Kuwait. We could destroy the country to destroy it and I think that issue raises a lot of ethical moral questions that need to be addressed. That is my point.

MR. MacNeil: Archbishop, let's go on to another of your main criteria. We can't get through all six of them here, but the last resort, have all peaceful alternatives been fully pursued before war is undertaken, now how do you decide when you know that?

ARCHBISHOP MAHONY: I think this is one of the most important ones. It really says to us, to all people, that you have got to have explored and tried every alternative to armed force, and certainly in our estimation today we have not reached that point. The embargo and other political sanctions are underway. They're having a certain level of effectiveness, and I think that's good. And actually I believe those need more time, they need to be strengthened, they need to be air tight, but they are having an impact on Mr. Hussein and on Iraq.

MR. MacNeil: James Webb, how do you decide when enough time has been given to the peaceful attempt through the sanctions? When do those military actions become a last resort, in your view?

MR. WEBB: Well, I think the difficulty in the situation right now, to be quite frank, is that President Bush has a greater problem than the country has on that point. By committing all of these troops in such overwhelming numbers early on and now by reinforcing them, we have a situation where more than half of the United States Army is overseas without a rotation policy. There is pressure to bring the situation to some sort of resolution. This alliance that everyone keeps lionizing tonight is an alliance of different motivations from the different countries that are involved. When I start reading all these things in the paper about the new world order that we're working on here, I get gas pains. I mean, if this is a new world order, then I think we ought to hold onto our wallet and lock up our teen-age kids before they get drafted. We've got a situation right now where the United States is obligating itself to the overwhelming burden of the world's policing based on this new world order. We have other nations who are committing themselves for totally different reasons. The Syrians, Iran, and the Soviets have all played both sides of this issue all the way down the line. All of those things put more pressure on the President than they do on the nation. As a nation, I think we should have more patience with this.

REV. JACKSON: Can I raise a point here?

MR. MacNeil: Sure.

REV. JACKSON: It is that we have so far opted not to negotiate Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait from a position of strength. We have opted to threaten him out. The issue's about territorial dispute between Kuwait and Iraq. The issue's about oil pricing or oil gouging or access to the sea. These issues ought be dealt with in such a way as to regain Kuwait's sovereignty, protect Saudi Arabia's security, do not put up a criteria that makes those issues of substance non-negotiable. And what we do when we make issues of substance non-negotiable, where we can't talk it out, we then can only fight it out. I would hope that our political objectives and our diplomatic approach would be at least as forceful and as aggressive and as open as our military and economic policies.

MR. MacNeil: Well, that was the point I just wanted to get to. Alexander Haig, when does the President decide that force -- that enough time has been spent on attempting peaceful means through the embargo or diplomatic means or whatever?

MR. HAIG: Well, Robin, let's get to basics. The United States with the United Nations and a consensus of the Arab League has decided to stand up against illegal aggression and President Bush has refused to reward that aggression by taking the position of unconditional withdrawal and a restoration of a legitimate regime in Kuwait. The UN supports it. The Arab consensus supports it. Mr. Jackson now suggests we depart from that. That is wrong-headed.

REV. JACKSON: That is not really true.

MR. HAIG: Let me finish, please, Jesse. You've had your say.

REV. JACKSON: Make your point.

MR. HAIG: Secondly, the basic issue is does the United States stand for a world of law and order and peaceful change, or do we ignore and overlook aggression of the kind that has occurred? I think we do that at our jeopardy.

MR. MacNeil: But how long --

MR. HAIG: And I think the President is exactly right in putting the number of forces necessary in that region to convince this outlaw that if, God forbid, we have to go to war, we are going to prevail and quickly, and I think that is the most humane moral position we can take.

MR. MacNeil: Les Aspin --

REV. JACKSON: We may be in a position where we are impatient on the timetable and start the war. We have no idea of the timetable it would take to end this war. I support our strength to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, protect Saudi's security. I also support our own commitment, support UN resolutions, if that's our shield now in the rest of the Middle East, Panama, Grenada, Angola, and South Africa as well, our persistence is a part of our moral authority.

MR. MacNeil: Jesse Jackson, all right, let's give Les Aspin an answer on this question of how long do we go until it can be fairly argued that force is being used as a last resort?

REP. ASPIN: Well, I guess my problem with that criteria is that everybody's got their own judgment, and I think that it is a judgment call and different people will differ, and no matter when you decide that the time has come, that it's the end of the string, that we have to go to war, there'll be somebody who says we haven't given the embargo enough chance, et cetera. But basically, I think that it will be, the judgment will be made if -- that's one of the reasons why I think it's important to get a vote in Congress, and I think we're going to go to trying to get a vote in the UN under Article 42.

MR. MacNeil: You said yesterday --

REP. ASPIN: -- collective judgment, and I think that Jim Baker's trip this last time around the world I thought was very, very successful.

MR. MacNeil: You said yesterday you thought the crunch would come around the end of January, beginning of March.

REP. ASPIN: Yes.

MR. MacNeil: And that if Saddam hadn't got out, then an ultimatum would be made to him and force would follow. That is your position?

REP. ASPIN: That is my prediction.

MR. MacNeil: And is that a reasonable amount of time, in your view?

REP. ASPIN: Well, I think it is. I mean, I'm guessing that at some point here along about January or something else, we will have a vote in the UN on the issue, Security Council, we will have a vote in Congress on the issue. I think at that point people will look and say, in my judgment, there is or is not a basis for continuing the embargo or not using military force. That's why I think it's important to come to a vote. I mean, I think it's going to have to be a collective judgment in some ways, because I say no matter when you do it, somebody's going to say you haven't given the embargo a chance.

MR. MacNeil: Archbishop Mahony, let's give you the last word here. Is that a reasonable amount of time to -- do you think?

ARCHBISHOP MAHONY: Well, I'm just very pleased that these kinds of questions are being debated in a program as prestigious as this. I think this is a wonderful way for the American people to hear about the values at stake.

MR. MacNeil: May I just interrupt. I'm grateful for your praise, but may I interrupt. Your letter suggested today, and you had overwhelming support, that you thought the timetable was being speeded up too much and in a word, is that still --

ARCHBISHOP MAHONY: I was going to answer your question.

MR. MacNeil: I see.

ARCHBISHOP MAHONY: But I do believe that we always have to move forward in these kinds of issues with due caution. There is always more time to negotiate and to reach a peaceful solution than there is to mop up after a war, and so I think we should take that time thoughtfully, respectfully, involving the various constituencies, or the American people are not themselves going to feel that they support this.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Archbishop Mahony, Jesse Jackson, Alexander Haig, James Webb, and Les Aspin, thank you for joining us. CONVERSATION - I WANT YOU

MS. WOODRUFF: Tonight we begin a new series of conversations designed to explore attitudes toward war in the Gulf. Our central question is, under what circumstances would you support sending American troops into combat? We start with a former infantry lieutenant who lost an arm fighting in Vietnam. His name is Frederick Downs. Mr. Downs has written two books based on his Vietnam experiences and is in the process of writing a third. It focuses on his work developing rehabilitation programs for Vietnamese civilians after the war. He is now the director of the Prosthetic and Censory Aid Service for the Veterans Administration in Washington. Mr. Downs, thank you for being with us. When you hear debates like the one on the program just now, given your personal and your professional experience, what goes through your mind?

FREDERICK DOWNS: I'm pro, I'm con, I worry about all the factors everybody else worries about, but it comes down to the bottom line in that I have to trust the decision makers who are operating from information base. I know what they're doing and I've got to back them up. It's a matter of trust. And so I believe that. My personal -- I know what's going to happen if the war starts. I have to prepare for it and -- but still, you have to trust that your government's doing the right thing.

MS. WOODRUFF: The part of you that trusts that they're doing the right thing, what's right about it? What is the justification they've made or that's been made for sending troops into combat, that rings true with you?

MR. DOWNS: I don't know. That's the hard part. You know, I don't have a definite answer there. It's me -- being a lieutenant -- I understand wanting to fight, doing what you're told to do, your government thinks it's the right thing to do, so you go do it. So you have to, you just have to have a certain faith. That's a gut - - that's part of -- I know this sounds corny -- it's like I'm an American, this is my country, I voted, I put these people in, I hope they're making the right decisions, and I got to back them up when I make the decision. It's got to be that way. Yet, too much second guessing, too many criticisms from too many different sources, and pretty soon the fabric becomes torn and nothing makes any sense anymore.

MS. WOODRUFF: So does it matter to you whether the justification has to do with being over there for the oil in that part of the world, being over there to rescue the hostages if we found out the hostages were being badly physically mistreated? I mean, would there have to be the right justification to make you be angry enough to say yes, this is the right course of action for us?

MR. DOWNS: Well, I don't care whether I got to pay for gas if it comes down to that, so I know that's not it. The hostages, well, they weren't hostages before. They were people working over there for their government. So they're getting paid to be over there doing what they're doing. Is this rock leader, is he a mad man, is that what we're going over there for, and if so, am I personally fit? Do we assassinate him if he is the problem? Why kill a lot of our soldiers and a lot of their soldiers and innocent people in- between when if it all comes down to one problem, so I'm kind of ruthless in that manner, and I'm also ruthless in that if we decided to go to war, and by God we go in and we fight, and we are ruthless about that as we have to be, let's get this job done, and that means a lot of people are going to die. It also means a lot of people are going to be wounded. And we have to think about the aftermath of that. But that's the hard decisions that have to be made.

MS. WOODRUFF: But when you say it makes sense to you to go in and just take out Saddam Hussein before we risk a lot of American lives, you mean go in and try to assassinate him.

MR. DOWNS: A lot of their lives too, on their side. Why -- who are these people that are in the trenches out there? You know, they're not the sons of your chief executive officers, I would say. Most of the volunteer service are composed of people who went in because it was a career, it was a chance for an education, it was a service they liked serving their country, but let's face the cold facts. You know, there have been some things said about the people who compose the troops over there, what's their socioeconomic background. Well, I'd have to say I've often thought that yes, I trust my government to make the right decision but I also think that if we had something like national service - - and I knew that the Congressman's sons and nephews and the President's son were right there in the trenches, if they were too, then what kind of forethought would go into war planning then? See, these are my personal thoughts.

MS. WOODRUFF: How different would it be do you think if there were more sons and daughters of important people over there?

MR. DOWNS: Well, since they're the policy makers, I think they would think a lot harder about their policy and if they are committed enough to say we are doing the right thing, then that would certainly develop more trust and more credibility in what they're saying about what should be done. I've heard a lot of experts on these programs, I've been listening to a lot. They talk about, it's almost like game theory to 'em and you know, even us old veterans in Vietnam, we've been away from the war for about 20 years. In my particular job, I deal with disabled veterans every day. I took care -- last year my service took care of a million disabled veterans, providing them with prosthetic appliances; that's arms, legs, wheelchairs, the blind -- you know, these are the people I think about. And we live with these people for the rest of our lives. And that's a part of war. So to me it's not game playing and the emotionalism and the arguments and the counter arguments. If I get involved with that, I'm not a policy maker. So it comes down to the man on the ground. I have a cousin there, Tom McNulty. He flies Apache Gunships for the 101st.

MS. WOODRUFF: In Saudi Arabia.

MR. DOWNS: In Saudi Arabia. And his letters home just sound any soldier's home, but he's ready -- he's ready to do his job. And Italked to his aunt and what does she say -- she says, she says, well, I have to trust the government. She says, I hope they're doing the right thing. And my uncles and my cousins back home in Indiana, that's what they say too. And so that's where the mainstream of America is. We trust what the decision process is that's going on.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, you just said that yourself, and yet, you then proceeded to give a number of reasons why you're uncomfortable about sending a lot of American troops over there to die.

MR. DOWNS: That's because I'm a dogmatic person. I -- you know, I have to make a balance of the decisions to be made and sure, I would have doubts and questions, but you have to have a core of belief. And that's important. My aunt believes it; my uncles believe it; my cousins believe it; my friends believe it. And we have our doubts. And that's part of the mixture of their professionalism and that we would do our job. It's also our personal feelings about that. Well, it's going to hurt, people are going to die. Are we doing the right thing? You know, is it gas, is it cabbage -- is it -- you know, is Iran going to enter the war with Iraq against us, what are we immersing ourselves into? Those questions are being argued constantly by your experts here. But I am I think offering the point of view of, you know, not sure we're doing the right thing or not, so that's the reason I'm trusting our government and the policy makers.

MS. WOODRUFF: Put yourself back in the shoes of an infantry lieutenant. Say you were over there in Saudi Arabia right now. What would you say to the enlisted men and women who were under you, under your command about why they might be asked to risk their lives? How would you explain to them, if they asked you for the explanation?

MR. DOWNS: I'd tell them that we were in the service to do the job. And I'd explain it to them basically the same as I just explained to you in that I would expect them to do what they were ordered to do, what they enjoyed doing. We have volunteer troops here, and this is their job. They are trained to do this, and I hope I will provide good leadership and they will follow us across the line when the time comes.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you think it's been made clear to them and to everybody else why we're there, why the United States is there?

MR. DOWNS: No, I don't think they're probably any more clear about it than I am. But, they're going to do their job and that's what's important, and I think that the President and the Congress, they know that, and so we are the tool they're going to use to promote their policy, they can -- they have full trust in us -- I know that.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is it okay for the United States, for voices in the United States to be expressing dissent as we're starting to hear over the last few days, how do you feel about that?

MR. DOWNS: We're in a democracy. The things I hope that will be learned from that is the last time there was dissent, they took it out against the returning soldiers and the people in the military. And I hope there's one lesson learned from all of that in the Vietnam years, it's that, you know, don't take your aggression out on the soldiers, and the sailors and the airmen and the military, you know, but they're just doing their job. You can't blame them. You talk to your President, you talk to your Congressmen, and you do all your agitating in front of them, but you don't pick on the soldiers.

MS. WOODRUFF: What happens to you in your position at the Veterans Administration if war were to break out? How would that affect your life?

MR. DOWNS: In the Veterans Administration, we're the back-up for DOD, so we are now preparing. Our hospitals are on notice. They report on a daily bed census. We have a break-down of hospitals, those who can handle the chemical burns, those who can handle the spinal chord injury, those who can handle the amputees, and they're located all up and down the coast, of course, and across the nation we are preparing for the eventuality of war and casualties and in my particular area of rehabilitation, prosthetics or ethotics, we will provide for however many years they live their legs, their arms, if their in blind rehabilitation, why, the blind rehab centers, they'll become more overloaded. Frankly, the work load will increase. We've got to look at the practicality of it. The budget's going to increase. A limb like this costs about twenty- two, twenty-three hundred dollars. And the technology is there, it's increasing, so we have to think about that. Right now our annual budget's about $30 billion in the VA and why is that? We take care of veterans. And that's the whole panorama of the 20th century when you look at the Veterans Administration is, are wars from the turn of the century till now, if this latest thing in Saudi Arabia results in war, and of course, if we have people getting hurt right now, why? They're part of it.

MS. WOODRUFF: Frederick Downs, we thank you for being with us.

MR. DOWNS: Thank you. I hope I had something to say there.

MS. WOODRUFF: You sure did. ESSAY - HOME FOREVER

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight, some thoughts about Veteran's Day from ex-Marine Jim Fisher, now a columnist for the Kansas City Star. [NEWSREEL FOOTAGE]

MR. FISHER: Forty-five years ago this fall, World War II was over and the boys were coming home. Remember the Newsreels filled with faces, young, happy, smiling. Gone were the guns and tanks and the mud and the rain of earlier newsreels, now with sea bags and packs as the troops boarded homebound ships. The apple tree was just over the next ocean's swell. Finally, port, the boys crowding to the rail. The welcome home sign, embraces, tears, families, they had survived; they were home. Yet, they came home to an uncertain world, to housing shortages and the GI Bill, to VA loans, to waiting lists for new cars and exploding maternity wards, to a changed, crisis-oriented world, and for most, a future of middle class prosperity, material things their parents never dreamed of. There would be two more wars in Korea and Vietnam, inconclusive and dirty, where their brothers and sons would come home in dribbles, ignored, or scorned. World War II faded into reunions and those small town parades in which older men looked uncomfortable in ill fitting uniforms. World War II for most Americans seems as distant as the Civil War, recalled only at times like last fall, when the walls and barricades, visceral legacies of that long ago war, finally came down in Eastern Europe. But in North Georgia, how can they forget that war? Every weekday, a final act of that war, occurs here with 20 ton blocks of marble cut from the floor of the Georgia Marble Quarry at Tate. Not just World War II either. Name a war this country has fought in, the last physical act or participance happens here and in a few other places. The boys of World War II are dying. Forty-five years means they are in their 60s, 70s, and in some cases their 80s, ages when mortality is no longer an abstraction of youth. About 25,000 World War II veterans die each month now. That number will peak in the mid '90s at 36,000 a month. And that means production for Georgia Marble. It means gang saws cutting blocks into four-inch think blanks. Other diamond tipped saws trimming to three feet, six inches high. Then one foot, one inch wide. Other machines rounding the top. Human hands finishing the stone, applying latex stencil, then sand blasting the name of letters deep enough, the company says, to last several centuries. Georgia Marble is currently producing 3,000 head stones a month. Another thousand come from a Vermont marble company; flat grave markers designed for easy mowing account for the rest. How many is that? Well, the VA says 75 percent of the 25,000 veterans who die each month choose a government marker and that is the surprise. The deliberate opting for simplicity, uniformity. Why? Why would a man or a woman who spent a mere fraction of their lives in absolute boredom, bug-infested discomfort, or even mortal danger choose such a simple marker? One of the reason is the markers are free, the taxpayers pick up the $150 tab. But the answer has to be more than that. Was it the bonding of soldiers and sailors and Marines and Coast Guardsmen in days that were both wonderful and terrible? Was it the memories of buddies, closer in battle than any later wife or child who didn't come back? Or was it the pride in the swaying ranks marching together, ever onward, to some disputed rendezvous? The answers, if they could be heard, are probably as disparate as the markers. The religious affiliation atop each stone. The initials of the service person. The names, themselves. Yet, stand back at a national cemetery, such as this one at Marietta, Georgia. Remember the rush down the gang plank when the war was over, the dissolving of military ranks, the rush towards America, all it offered? Now they are in the ranks again. They are home. I'm Jim Fisher. RECAP

MS. WOODRUFF: Again, the main stories of this Monday, U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops today called for limits on the use of force by the United States in the Persian Gulf. In a letter to Sec. of State Baker, they said an all out war against Iraq would raise serious moral questions. And Egyptian President Hosne Mubarak said troops from his country would not participate in an invasion of Iraq. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Judy. That's the NewsHour tonight. Tomorrow night an extended discussion of the Gulf situation between George Ball and Henry Kissinger, two former officials who differed over Vietnam and do now. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.