The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, Pres. Bush said he's sending Defense Sec. Cheney and Gen. Colin Powell to the Persian Gulf. Mr. Bush said he's skeptical that an air war against Iraq will be enough. In other news, the Treasury Department proposed sweeping changes for the nation's banking system. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, we have an interview with former Sec. of State George Shultz on trying Saddam Hussein as a war criminal, the possible diplomatic hows and whens of ending the war, and on how to deal with the troubled times of Soviet Pres. Gorbachev. Journalist Jim Hoagland and Middle East experts Gary Sick and Robert Hunter will react to his Gulf War positions. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Defense Sec. Cheney and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Colin Powell will be going to the Persian Gulf later this week. Pres. Bush said today he is sending them to get a personal status report on the war. Mr. Bush made the announcement at a news conference this morning. He said he was very skeptical air power alone would force Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, but again said it would not be a long, drawn out war. He was asked if the allied bombing campaign was intended to destroy Iraq's infrastructure.

PRES. BUSH: No, we are not trying to systematically destroy the functions of daily living in Iraq. That's not what we're trying to do, or are we doing it. Our main goal is to get this man to comply with the resolutions, but we are not trying to systematically destroy the infrastructure or to destroy Iraq. For example, I can tell you about on targeting petroleum resources what we're not trying to wipe out all their ability to produce oil, we're not trying to wipe out all their ability to refine oil. We are trying to wipe out and keep them from resupplying their military machine.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Bush warned Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, to think very, very carefully about using chemical weapons. He also said he had not yet seen a specific peace proposal from Iran. The president of Iran offered yesterday to mediate an end to the war. A Deputy Soviet Foreign Minister arrived in Tehran today for talks. We'll have more on the Bush news conference, and a discussion about possible diplomatic initiatives later in the program. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: US military officials said today that at least 10 more Iraqi planes have flown into Iran. They said at least 110 Iraqi planes are now there. Allied military officials also said Syrian forces exchanged fire with Iraqi troops trying to cross the Saudi border. The Iraqis were driven back by Syrian artillery fire. It was Syria's first reported combat of the war. Allied warplanes continued to pound away at targets in Iraq for the 20th straight day. There were reports of strikes against Saddam Hussein's home town of Tekrit, 95 miles North of Baghdad. U.S. officials said allied targets remained military installations and supply lines in Iraq and Kuwait, not civilian areas. Baghdad Radio said today heating oil, gasoline, and gas for cooking would not longer be sold to civilians. Baghdad continues to be under heavy allied air attack. Brent Sadler of Independent Television News filed this report on the situation yesterday. It was cleared by Iraqi censors.

MR. SADLER: Allied air strikes on Baghdad began around midnight local time and lasted until early this morning. Unspecified targets to the Southeast and West of the capital were heavily bombed. The engines of an allied warplane sounded close. The raids were concentrated in areas well outside the city limits, but the thud of detonating high explosives traveled far. The attacks lasted six hours, drawing intense ground fire. Today an Iraqi military spokesman said there were 77 allied sorties during the past 24 hours, and claimed nine allied planes or missiles had been shot down. The view along the River Tigress today showed smoke billowing from a destroyed building. This damage was caused sometime during the past week. Several shops were flattened by allied planes, possibly aiming for this bridge over the Tigress. Iraq claims to have suffered heavy civilian casualties since the start of the war, but there's no hard evidence to support a large scale loss of life. Reports from travelers into Iraq, however, do speak of civilian casualties along routes into Jordan. A variety of transporters have been attacked, but we can only show the effects on non-military vehicles. Roads are littered with the wreckage of lorries and cars. The driver of one vehicle was found lying in the sand. The destruction of Iraqi roads and bridges continues to be of vital strategic interest to the allied campaign.

MR. MacNeil: At a briefing in Saudi Arabia today, a British military spokesman said allied bombing raids have destroyed a third of Iraq's key bridges. We have a report on one bombing raid carried out by British Tornados from Mark Austin of Independent Television News.

MR. AUSTIN: For the first time, a cockpit camera provides a pilot's eye view of a mission. The precision comes from these bombs with laser guidance systems attached to the front. They're steered by monitoring equipment on the Buccaneers seen here refueling before they and the Tornados leave friendly skies. These days the missions are flown unchallenged by enemy fighters, and there's little defensive fire from the ground. When the laser in on target, the Tornadoes drop their bombs. Here a bridge inevitably carrying civilian as well as military traffic is hit and destroyed. The lefthand side of the bridge targeted by one Buccaneer goes first. Immediately afterwards, another plane lines up its laser on the right hand side. Mission accomplished, the planes head for home.

MR. MacNeil: American B-52 bombers continued to pound Republican Guard positions in Southern Iraq today. Meanwhile, B-52s began arriving at the RAF air base in Fairford, England, 70 miles North of London. The planes will flying bombing runs into Iraq and Kuwait. Britain agreed to a U.S. request to base the planes at Fairford because of a shortage of space at bases in the Middle East.

MR. LEHRER: The U.S. Air Force in Saudi Arabia began preparing for a ground offensive today. We have a report by network pool reporter Scott Pelley. He spent the day with the 157th tactical fighter wing in Central Saudi Arabia.

MR. PELLEY: The combat role of many U.S. attack planes changed suddenly today, suggesting preparations for a land assault are underway. F-16s that had been involved in massive bombing are now being fitted with maverick missiles designed to support ground forces.

PILOT: I hope it helps the ground troops up front so they don't have so much battling to do and also it tells me that a few days down the road they're going to be moving.

MR. PELLEY: The maverick is a precision guided missile used to take out individual targets like tanks and artillery pieces. The pilots here say it is the weapon of choice to be used after the massive strategic bombing begins to wind down. Returning pilots say the maverick is needed because after three weeks of bombing there are fewer targets left.

PILOT: They're dispersing more and more and I think that's because of the damage that's been done to 'em. They're getting harder and harder to find, however, we're doing a better and better job of finding 'em.

MR. PELLEY: The Air Force says mavericks kill targets more than 80 percent of the time. Pilots returning today were impressed. These planes are concentrating on Iraq's elite troops, the Republican Guard. Pilots report a devastating impact.

PILOT: I went up there this morning and we looked around within a fifteen to twenty mile radius, there were bombs exploding, you know, every minute or so.

PILOT: It was pretty devastating, a lot like looking at the surface of the moon. There's a lot of damage obviously that's been done to them up there and I'd imagine by now they're really taking some real hard hits.

MR. PELLEY: The mavericks will be used to zero in on the armor facing the allied invasion force. This is likely to be the beginning of the last phase of the air war designed to pave the way into Kuwait.

MR. LEHRER: Police in Saudi Arabia have made six arrests in connection with the weekend sniper attack on U.S. soldiers in Judah. Two soldiers were slightly injured when shots were fired at a shuttle bus. A U.S. military spokesman said the six suspects were neither Saudis nor Iraqis.

MR. MacNeil: Israeli jet fighters attacked Palestinian guerrilla positions near Sidon in South Lebanon today, killing at least eight people and injuring twenty-eight. Police said the planes hit strongholds of Yasser Arafat's PLO faction and an office of the pro-Iraqi Baath Party. Today's raid came a day after PLO spokesmen said Yasser Arafat had ordered his guerrillas in South Lebanon to stop their rocket attacks on Israel.

MR. LEHRER: The Bush administration announced a plan to reform the American Banking System today. It would allow banks to engage in non-banking industries such as securities and insurance, and to open branches across state lines and would put some limits on deposit insurance. Congress must now approve it. Pres. Bush said today Canada will join talks with the United States and Mexico to create a North American free trade zone. He said such an agreement would expand market opportunities and help all three countries.

MR. MacNeil: In the Soviet Union, Pres. Gorbachev decreed that Lithuania's upcoming vote for independence was illegal. The non- binding pole is scheduled for Saturday. Gorbachev said the vote would exploit tension in the area. At the White House this morning, Pres. Bush was asked whether the United States should still be dealing with Gorbachev.

PRES. BUSH: He is still in charge and he is still the President of the Soviet Union and thus, we will deal with the President of the Soviet Union. He has enormous problems at home and we discussed them. He made -- his new foreign minister was here and said they were going to do certain things. We're watching to see if they will all be done. Some have been done.

REPORTER: Do you feel the era of glasnost and perestroika is over?

PRES. BUSH: The era of it, no. I think it'll never go back, no matter what happens, to the totalitarian closed society days of the cold war.

MR. LEHRER: That's our News Summary for tonight. Now it's on to more of the President's news conference, George Shultz, and how and when to end the Persian Gulf War and what to do about Gorbachev. FOCUS - ENDING THE WAR - DESERT STORM

MR. LEHRER: Our lead story tonight is the prospect of a diplomatic exit from the Gulf War. The question arose yesterday with Iran's offer to mediate between Iraq and the United States. The State Department said there was nothing to mediate, that Iraq had to comply with 12 United Nations resolutions to get out of Kuwait. At his news conference today, Pres. Bush fielded several questions on Gulf diplomacy and war aims. They included one about whether he would be disappointed if the war ends with Saddam Hussein still in power. The President said that was not the case and then he elaborated.

PRES. BUSH: The war will not end with Saddam Hussein standing with his view that he will not withdraw from Kuwait. I believe one of the things you will see that came out of these recent meetings with Hadami, the Iraqi Hadami, in Iran is that Iran is -- I mean, Iraq is showing no flexibility whatsoever in terms of withdrawing from Kuwait. So we get right back to square one. There's nothing to negotiate about. There's nothing to be conciliatory about when you have a person who's steadfast in his refusal to comply with the fundamental purpose, and that is to get him out of Kuwait, but we haven't shifted our objectives on this. Now would I weep? Would I mourn? Somehow Saddam Hussein did not remain as head of his country. I thought Prime Minister Major spoke very well about it, very convincingly about it, and he reflected my view that, no, there will be no sorrow if he's not there. In fact, it would be a lot easier to see a successful conclusion because I don't believe anybody other than Saddam Hussein is going to want to continue to submit, to subject his army to the pounding they are taking or his people to the pounding that is going on. So I would like to think that somehow, some way that would happen, but I have no evidence that it will.

REPORTER: It's already been suggested though that he is willing to suffer that level of casualties to his forces to increase a wave of anti-American sentiment in the region after the war, politically after the war. Is that a consideration?

PRES. BUSH: I wouldn't be surprised if that's what he's trying to do, but I think that after the war, when we prevail and we will, and when the coalition prevails, and it will, there will be a renewed credibility for the United States, renewed credibility for the United Nations, and thus, I worry far less about that than about other things, because I think we then have an enormous potential to be joined with others in being the peacemakers. The fact that Iran would like to see the war end is encouraging and Iran is conducting itself, in my view, in a very credible way here. They said that those airplanes that come in there are going to be impounded and we take them at their word on that. They have not been violators at the sanctions that we're aware of. They have wanted to remain neutral. They are concerned about continued U.S. ground force presence in the Gulf and I keep saying not just to reassure Iran but to everybody else, we have no intention of leaving forces in that area. We are there as part of a coalition under the United Nations resolutions to get this job done, so I have no argument with the way Iran is conducting itself. I think Iran knows that he has to -- that Saddam has to comply fully with these resolutions and start a credible, visible withdrawal in the new regime of legitimate leaders comes back to Kuwait, and that's the way it could end, if Saddam would come to his senses. I keep coming back to the point that in all these talks there is no indication that he is prepared to get out of Kuwait. It's always the bottom line. They talk and talk and talk but this is province 19, we're going to stay there.

REPORTER: Mr. President, there are some reports circulating that if Saddam Hussein were to begin a withdrawal from Kuwait, we would still continue the processes of war at least for a while until you were satisfied that the conditions were met. This is a semi- hypothetical. He hasn't gotten out of Kuwait, but could you tell us something about your conditions for agreeing to a cease-fire in the event that he did begin.

PRES. BUSH: Well, it would have to be a credible, visible, totally convincing withdrawal. There would be other things I will not state here that I would want to see happen. That would mean immediate supervision of the withdrawal. It would mean return of the legitimate government right away, and so there's several things that -- the reason I want to pull back a little and give you a 10 point program is that he's got to say I'm going to get out of Kuwait now and I'm going to get out fast and I'm going to do it so everybody knows that I'm not making this up, that I'm going to go forward, no trust, no concession, I'll get out if you'll get out. We've past that. We tried that, diplomatic effort after diplomatic effort. Now we're in a war with this man and he will comply with these resolutions fully, without concession, and then we can determine what niceties or what little details need to be done. But what has to happen to begin with is a credible withdrawal from Kuwait without concession, without condition, and all the rest of this then can fall into place. NEWS MAKER

MR. MacNeil: Yesterday we put many of those same questions about how and when the Gulf conflict might be resolved to former Sec. of State George Shultz. In his first major interview since the war began, he spoke at length with Judy Woodruff. Here's Part 1 of that interview.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us.

SEC. SHULTZ: Glad to be here.

MS. WOODRUFF: As you know, there are renewed efforts now underway in Iran to push for some sort of diplomatic solution to the Iraqi conflict. The -- Mr. Rafsanjani is saying that he would like to have some sort of cease-fire. Is this -- some people are saying this is an important breakthrough -- is this something that the United States should pursue?

SEC. SHULTZ: We certainly don't want a cease-fire with nothing else right now. And if he has a plan of some kind that would bring things out in tune, absolutely in tune with the UN resolutions, that's worth pursuing. But let's be clear that in order to win the peace, it's important how the war ends and Saddam Hussein should have this war ended in such a way that there is no conceivable rationalization that would say that it was a victory for Iraq. That means he has to get out of Kuwait, the former government goes back, the chemical, biological and nuclear weapon capability is done away with, he is brought to trial, held accountable for the war crimes which he has committed and which the UN Security Council has voted that there must be accountability for, and this highway robbery that Iraq conducted against Kuwait, well, there have to be some reparations.

MS. WOODRUFF: When you say held accountable, put on trial, isn't that going on beyond what the United States has said its principal aim is, which is just simply to get him out of Kuwait? Why isn't it enough just to get him out of Kuwait?

SEC. SHULTZ: Because he has committed war crimes since those initial objectives were set, and the UN Security Council voted in a formal resolution. The United States supported it, and my impression is probably the United States had a hand in initiating it, that this -- there has been rape; there has been murder of Kuwait citizens. He has taken prisoners of war; he has deliberately put them in harm's way. He's done all sorts of things that are defined as war crimes under Geneva Conventions to which Iraq is a party.

MS. WOODRUFF: So if he simply gets out of Kuwait with his troops and stands there and says I'm out, you're saying that's not enough?

SEC. SHULTZ: Of course not.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, how do we then pursue him? What do we then do? You're saying the army goes -- armed forces, the allied armed forces go into Iraq and we do what?

SEC. SHULTZ: Well, I assume that what we are doing is trying to implement the UN Security Council resolutions and I agree with that. Now, it's also apparent that we are trying to take out through out military action the chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capability and the ballistic missiles as best we can, and it looks to me as though our military's doing a sensational job. Now we'll want to be sure that that's true, so we need to inspect that, but I think that's an important objective, and certainly you don't want him to, as you say, pull out of Kuwait and have 500,000 troops sitting there on the Kuwait border and think that's a victory; that's not enough.

MS. WOODRUFF: But that's what this administration has said its aim is.

SEC. SHULTZ: No. The UN Security Council resolution and presidential statements that I've heard have always talked about having a situation when the war ends that's compatible with long- term security in the region.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, you're talking about much more -- a much longer and more difficult war than I think some people are presently contemplating, aren't you?

SEC. SHULTZ: I doubt it very much and everything that I said is contemplated in the UN Security Council resolutions and if you don't follow through, if it turns out to be possible for somebody to commit grotesque war crimes and you don't do anything about it, even after the UN Security Council has voted for it and has conducted highway robbery, remember, this isthe biggest bank heist in history and you don't do anything about it. After the UN Security Council has voted for it, what the heck.

MS. WOODRUFF: So even at the risk of more lives lost in ground combat, which is evidently what would be involved in seeking him out --

SEC. SHULTZ: I think that it's quite likely that the outcome of all these things will tend to be sort of simultaneous. But at any rate, the UN Security Council has voted these resolutions. We have supported them and I think we should see them through. And furthermore, I personally support what the UN Security Council voted. And I think the President does. He supported them. The United States voted for them.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you have any misgivings now, Mr. Secretary, about moves that were made by the United States to help Iraq while you were in office by giving them, for example, military intelligence, giving them financial aid, which they freed up money for them to spend on arms, making it easier for them to acquire chemical and biological weapons?

SEC. SHULTZ: The United States protested vehemently to the government of Germany about what we saw with things that would help them on chemical weapons production. We didn't do that. The Soviets and the French are the main suppliers of arms to Iran. Our influence in the Iran-Iraq War was basically to protect both shipping, which did call Iran to account, because Iran was the recalcitrant party, so I think it was in our interest and everybody's interest to try to bring that war to an end. Now the credits that Iraq got from the United States were largely for food and that's something that happens out of our political system where we are very anxious, as other countries are, to sell food on credit, so that happened.

MS. WOODRUFF: But didn't that free up their money for them to spend it --

SEC. SHULTZ: This money is fundable. But this business of anytime anything goes wrong, let's look around to see why the United States is at fault, I just don't buy it. I think the United States has basically performed very well in its effort to not really having really good relationships with either country or none with Iran and some with Iraq, helped get the Iran-Iraq War settled, and to do what it can in this case, and now I think our performance as a country in the face of Iraq aggression has been absolutely magnificent.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Bush administration and the Soviets issued a joint statement last week which said that if Saddam Hussein promises unequivocally to get out of Kuwait, that there could be a cease-fire. Now a lot of people --

SEC. SHULTZ: It's ridiculous to say that. That's not anywhere near a proper objective, that if he promises to get out of Kuwait, there can be a cease-fire. You don't want that, and I think the administration has said that in no way did they mean that.

MS. WOODRUFF: But isn't that what the statement said?

SEC. SHULTZ: Well, they have said that our position hasn't changed, and I heard Sec. Cheney in no uncertain terms say that a cease-fire on the basis of a promise of Iraq to get out of Kuwait just is not satisfactory.

MS. WOODRUFF: But I read that statement again this afternoon, Mr. Secretary, and it.

SEC. SHULTZ: I didn't make the statement, but I'm just saying that I think the notion of a cease-fire on the basis of a promise from a person who has never kept promises, well, a cease-fire is taken advantage of is a ridiculous proposition.

MS. WOODRUFF: So the State Department made a mistake by issuing that statement?

SEC. SHULTZ: I am not commenting on the statement as such. I'mjust commenting on the proposition.

MS. WOODRUFF: But the proposition is in the statement.

SEC. SHULTZ: Well, it's hedged around, but at any rate I'm saying what I think.

MS. WOODRUFF: A lot of people believe that that was a quid pro quo, that what we were really doing was giving the Soviets the language they wanted to keep them on board with our Gulf coalition in return for our keeping quiet about their crackdown in the Baltics.

SEC. SHULTZ: The United States is doing what it's doing very very well, leading a coalition, and what we're doing is very much in according with UN Security Council Resolutions and with the interest of everybody in the world for a better world. So we're not there sort of in our own interest, begging other people to join us. We're doing the world a favor by being there and ourself and other countries should support us for the same reason. We shouldn't have to be making concessions to other countries for them to take part in this, that or the other thing.

MS. WOODRUFF: Getting back to that statement that was released last week about the U.S. Joint Soviet statement, it seemed to link the concept in the Gulf with broader issues in the Middle East, including the fate of the Palestinians. The Israelis, among others, were very upset about that. Should there be that linkage between resolving this conflict in the Gulf and working out some sort of solution for the Palestinians?

SEC. SHULTZ: I didn't think it did link the two, although both were mentioned. But the Iraq invasion of Kuwait and the Iran-Iraq War, which are the two big conflicts in the Middle East of late, neither has anything whatever to do with Israel and the problems on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. They're just totally disconnected. There are important problems and they need to be worked on, but they have nothing whatever to do with the problems in Kuwait and the problems between Iraq and Iran.

MS. WOODRUFF: How do we go about picking up the pieces in the Middle East and in the Gulf, wider Gulf area, after this war is over?

SEC. SHULTZ: Well, we start now. We don't have to wait till the end of the war to start winning the peace, and it seems to me that there are three basic subjects to be addressed. The first has to do with security arrangements and here it seems to me what we want is a balance at a lower level of armaments. The Middle East is too heavily armed. We also need to get if we can, the world can, the elimination of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and ballistic missiles to carry them from that area. And I might take note in passing that I've seen that Prime Minister Shamir has explicitly called for a nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons for his own in the Middle East, so Israel apparently is willing to take part in such talks if they genuinely will do the job. So there are security arrangements of various kinds that we ought to work at, and no doubt, the people who need to talk about them are all of the people in the Middle East, plus those who have supplied the arms, and in some fashion try to get a handle on this heavily armed region. And that has its relationship to economic matters. And here I think on the one hand, there should be large contributions from the wealthy Arab states and some others, and I have read that the Gulf Cooperation Council, that's the council of the countries in the Gulf regions, the leader being Saudi Arabia, have decided to establish a fund and maybe that's where some of the reparations that are due from Iraq ought to flow. And I think anyway that those efforts ought to focus first on coalition partners who have really stepped up and taken a beating and at the same time have needs, and I would identify particularly Egypt and Turkey. Now these two countries have a lot of interesting attributes. They're both Moslem countries. In the case of Turkey, it has a secular method of government. It is moving in the direction of a freer market and enterprise system. It's getting healthier that way, and it's a bridge country. It's a member of NATO, and it has ties historically all through the Middle East. It has a relationship with Israel, and in the case of Egypt, of course, it has a peace treaty with Israel, and can be a bridge, and a bridge around into the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. I feel certain -- I would be glad to be disappointed -- but I feel certain that Syria and Iran will try to block efforts and economic development along these lines, and we'll have to watch out for that, and I think we also should urge Israel to do everything it can to make its economy more dynamic. And that means to take the lessons that are obvious all over the world. Israel has an economy that's far too heavily state owned. They should open it up, free it up, and they now have this marvelous flow of talented people from the Soviet Union, Soviet Jews that have come there and they are looking for good things to do. So there's a lot of merit to that, and then Israel could be a dynamo in the Middle East. I know I sound like I'm dreaming a little, but you've got to dream a little bit if you're going to get somewhere.

MS. WOODRUFF: Security and economics.

SEC. SHULTZ: Security and economics. And then, as I said earlier, I would hope something like the Shamir plan might go forward and what that envisaged was that the Palestinians on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would elect some people that would deal directly with Israel, and Israel, I think intelligently, has said let's first try to establish an interim regime where we give a great deal more autonomy for controlling the conditions of life to the local inhabitants and at the same time we say up front that there will be before long discussions about how this all will be - - come out in the end -- the so-called final stages of negotiations. Personally, I think some sort of mixed sovereignty type of solution is doable and would be a far more satisfactory situation than now and it would look to Israel's security but also give the Palestinians some sense of identity and be a way in which in the end Jordan could be drawn in and other countries, because Israel also needs to talk not only to the Palestinians on the West Bank, but also to the countries of its neighborhood.

MS. WOODRUFF: How easy is all of that going to be?

SEC. SHULTZ: It's hard, everything's hard, but one lesson that we should take from all this is that when things go wrong in the Middle East, we're drawn into it inevitably, the whole word is. It has that nature to it. And also, when you have an absence of a peace process, it's an invitation to problems and I think a peace process to be present has to be more than an idea. It has to have enough reality connected with it that it attracts people's attention and, in effect, sets the agenda. It becomes a thing you argue about and maybe you denounce it and maybe you're for it, or maybe you say it should be changed, but any way, it sets the agenda, and I think we need to get an agenda set and it's hard work and everybody who's worked at it knows how difficult it is.

MS. WOODRUFF: -- be forthcoming about it --

SEC. SHULTZ: That's right. It's up to the United States,I think, to try to take the lead here.

MR. MacNeil: Joining us now to share their own views on how and when to end the war are Gary Sick, a member of the Carter administration's National Security Council staff, he's the author of "All Fall Down, America's Fateful Encounter with Iran", Robert Hunter was director of Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 1979 to '81, he's now vice president at the Center For Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, and Jim Hoagland is a columnist for the Washington Post. Gary Sick, you've heard the President today and former Sec. of State Shultz. Are Pres. Bush's goals what Sec. Shultz said they should be, press on, try Saddam for war crimes, demand reparations, go that far, do you think that's what Pres. Bush's goals are?

MR. SICK: I'm always impressed that former presidents and former secretaries of state are much more forthcoming when they're out of office than they were when they were in office about what their statements are and their interpretations. Frankly, I think Sec. Shultz gave an excellent presentation of what our war aims really are, but what the President can't talk about. If you look at it from my point of view, if your objective is to maintain some kind of security in the region, as Sec. Shultz said, implicit in that is the fact that Saddam Hussein's war making capability and his leadership has to go. That is simply implicit and it seems to me it's been implicit from the very beginning, and it seems to me it's coming closer and closer to that, though the President still will not say it aloud.

MR. MacNeil: Jim Hoagland, is that right, and why won't the President say so, if those are his goals?

MR. HOAGLAND: Well, I don't think it would be wise for the President to declare that as an aim. It gives him more flexibility at this point to leave that open, to leave it vague. After all, he has pointed out, or other officials have pointed out, how difficult it was to try to snare Mr. Noriega in Panama. You don't want to frustrate yourself with setting that aim. Also, I think it would be unwise at this point to say that we will have war crime trials for Saddam Hussein. We want to hold that in reserve. We want to be able to say that if he uses chemical weapons, commits other outrages, there's still something we can do to punish him personally. We want to hold that back.

MR. MacNeil: Robert Hunter, to pursue Saddam Hussein in order to bring him for trial would involve American forces in further activities than perhaps the American public may have contemplated now, wouldn't it be fair to the American public if their men are going to fight and die for that to spell out precisely what these aims are?

MR. HUNTER: I think the President did spell out most of the aims when the war started on January 16th, even before he talked about freeing up Kuwait, which is in the Security Council resolution, he said, we will eliminate his nuclear capacity for the future, his chemicals, we'll reduce his offensive capability, particularly his artillery and his tanks. This obviously we started doing from the first moment and this is far more important than liberating Kuwait. In fact, the Secretary of State, former secretary, talked about it, that job is largely done now. The question of war crimes trials, I agree with Jim Hoagland, not just to have something in reserve, but to give this man some incentive maybe to pull out of Kuwait. If he thinks we're simply going to pursue him and hang him, which he richly deserves, he's less likely to compromise on anything. But to go back --

MR. MacNeil: Let me just spell that out with you. In other words, for President Bush to say, Saddam Hussein, we're going to find you and try you for war crimes would stiffen Saddam Hussein's resolve and make him an even tougher fight do you think?

MR. HUNTER: I think that would. In fact, when it was first broached last fall by the Sec. of State, Mr. Baker, he talked about the generals as well. Go back to 1944, the secretary of the treasury came up with a thing called the Morganthau Plan to pasteurellas Germany. The Nazis seized upon it and some people think it prolonged the war. As late as last year, the Communists of East Germany were still presenting this as what the Americans would have done. So maybe when we catch him later on, if that happens, that's what he deserves, but I don't think it's worth any American lives beyond getting him out of Kuwait.

MR. MacNeil: Well, let's go back just for a moment to this statement the U.S. and Soviets released last week which Sec. Shultz just called ridiculous, this notion that a promise of withdrawal would be -- would begin -- could possibly lead to ending the war. What was all that about?

MR. SICK: I think it was a mistake, indeed, and a mistake in the sense that it was an attempt to bargain a little bit with the Soviets and give them something that they could work with, and I think this is a throw away line, but, in fact, what it actually said in terms of a cease-fire was a mistake diplomatically. Now what it may have represented, even if it was a diplomatic mistake, and why it may not have seemed so terrible to Jim Baker negotiating it, was that it probably is the truth, that if, in fact, a cease- fire is authored at some stage along the way, it probably would not be to our interest to accept that, but it's going to be extremely difficult to resist. And if Saddam Hussein says tomorrow morning, I'm ready to accept the cease-fire and stop the carnage, and he holds out some prospect that he is going to make it out of Kuwait, and the whole thing can be resolved, my guess is there'll be a lot of people rushing in to support that even if it doesn't --

MR. MacNeil: So if the Iranians with the Soviets there together somehow come up with something and get some favorable response from Saddam Hussein now and he comes up with that, Pres. Bush just couldn't refuse that?

MR. SICK: He could refuse it for a short period of time, but I think the pressure from the American public, from world opinion would overwhelm him very soon.

MR. LEHRER: Jim Hoagland, agree with that?

MR. HOAGLAND: I'm not as persuaded as Gary Sick is at that point. I think the President today in the film clip that we've just seen laid out for the first time the specific conditions that will have to be met by Saddam Hussein before we will give him any kind of pause or a cease-fire. He talked about restoring the legitimate government of Kuwait, that is, putting the emir on an airplane and sending him to Kuwait City and having Saddam Hussein accept that as a condition for the pause. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think we have to worry about it. I'd make one other point though. It's useful to have Soviets, the Iranians, French, whoever else there is to be making these peace efforts right now, because again it gives Saddam Hussein an incentive not to use chemical weapons, which is about his last card, and he's down to his last card now. So I think it's very useful to have these peace efforts going on.

MR. MacNeil: Robert Hunter, in one sense this appears to be a crucial moment. The ground war offensive has not begun, Saddam Hussein has not yet used chemical weapons which would change the order of things. Arab opinion is beginning to be inflamed by the attack on Ira. The Soviet deputy foreign minister on his way to Tehran said today the war is getting out of hand. How do you think the timing of all these factors plays in the President's mind now as he sends Colin Powell and Sec. Cheney over to the Gulf again?

MR. HUNTER: I take the President at his word, which is that he has heard nothing at all from Saddam Hussein that would indicate that he contemplate leaving Kuwait. We in some respects have been negotiating with ourselves, because despite what is done by the Iranians and one can welcome at the Soviets or the plans that we put forward, nothing at all has come out of Baghdad to show flexibility so the President will move forward. If, indeed, it gets to the point where Saddam Hussein does understand that American resolve is there, no matter what happens in the Arab and Islamic world, maybe then he'll crack, but so far no sign whatsoever.

MR. MacNeil: Jim Hoagland, can the President, as he's repeatedly said over the past few days since that fighting at Khafji, can he continue to control the military timetable at his own pace, considering all these other factors that are going on at the moment, do you think?

MR. HOAGLAND: Well, I think we've already seen that the military timetable has been slowed down by the necessity to hunt for Scuds, by bad weather. This is not as quite precise a science as it might sound. I think the President, however, can make a reasonable and rational decision about when to go to the ground campaign. I don't think it's any longer a question of if. It's a question of when, because at the minimum you will need to send in ground troops to accept the surrender of the Iraqi occupation army in Kuwait, if it comes to that.

MR. MacNeil: I see. But does this moment before the ground offensive begins, if there's going to be one, before Iraq has used its further kind of weapons with this Arab opinion rising -- the temperature rising slightly in the Arab masses, and the Soviets and the Iranians involved, does this affect Mr. Bush's timing, do you think?

MR. HOAGLAND: At the margins. I think it's important that there have not been crowds in the streets in Saudi Arabia or in Egypt, the two key countries, nor indeed even in Syria.

MR. MacNeil: Some in Egypt, not huge, but some.

MR. HOAGLAND: Not of a decisive nature, not that create any problem for Hosne Mubarak, as far as I can tell.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah. What do you think about the moment we are in now in terms of the President's timing? Does it affect his timing at all?

MR. SICK: I've been struck by two things. First of all, I don't think that he's sending Colin Powell and Dick Cheney out to the Gulf just for their health or to enjoy the sunshine in Saudi Arabia. There's something very real that they're going out there for. The only thing I can imagine that they would be trying to assess is whether it's time to begin the ground campaign, and I think that --

MR. MacNeil: Why can't they do that from Washington?

MR. SICK: They can, they can, but I think they want this face to face talk with Schwarzkopf and his other military commanders who are there on the field immediately in touch with the thing, visits to the troops and so forth is important symbolically at least and probably more than that, and secondly, I was very struck in your film clip earlier about the young man who said now that they've shifted to using mavericks and they're going in after specific targets that that's really the end of the beginning. And I think that putting those two together, my own guess, and it's nothing more than that, is that we're getting very close to the ground campaign.

MR. MacNeil: Does everyone agree with that, Robert Hunter, that's why Powell and Cheney are going there, or is it to send a further message to Saddam Hussein?

MR. HUNTER: Well, the President keeps sending messages and none of them seem to be received. I think also he wants to talk to some of the -- they want to talk to some of the coalition partners, particularly the Saudis, the British, French and other ground commanders to make sure that when the ground campaign begins, everybody is working together. This really is -- I think you've put it correctly -- a vital moment in which Saddam Hussein has to recognize what's coming. Incidentally, one reason I think he has not used the chemical weapons or his other major card, which is widespread terrorism against Americans, I think he may understand that if he starts doing that, then there is nothing short of his absolute destruction that the American people would accept. It's one little bolt hole of a chance at some point of compromise.

MR. MacNeil: You mentioned the coalition partners. Jim Hoagland, is there any indication, the Soviets being perhaps one of them, any indication that these -- that this moment may show a bit of erosion in the coalition, that some people are clearly more interested in getting a cease-fire than others are, and is that in turn going to put pressure on the President to hurry up with the ground campaign before that erosion happens?

MR. HOAGLAND: Well, the situation in the Soviet Union is obviously quite unstable and we can't be sure from day to the next exactly what extent Gorbachev is going to continue to support our policy because we can't be sure if Gorbachev is still going to be there, but I thought that Foreign Minister Bersmetnik in coming here played his hand very well. He made statements in Moscow criticizing really American policy, then he comes to Washington, he gets the communique that he wanted, and suddenly those criticisms are erased. I think that was a bit of diplomatic poker and he won. I don't think it puts a lot of pressure on the President. The President is going down a road that he sees very clearly I think, he's sketched out, and he knows when and where he's going.

MR. MacNeil: Let's go round on this question finally. Is there a diplomatic exit possible from this war before a ground offensive?

MR. SICK: I think there's none available that the President would like because I think he really has set his goal on eliminating Saddam Hussein as a factor of regional instability in the region. I think there is -- there are things that are possible -- I can imagine, for instance, Saddam Hussein has shown real signs lately of gearing up for a final offensive thrust. It might be suicidal, but he would carry out a thrust across the border, and then perhaps accept a cease-fire while that's going on and say my forces were moving forward, I had not been defeated, I was winning when I stopped, and declare himself a victor, and then pull back. But I think the chance of actual negotiated settlement is slim almost to the vanishing point.

MR. MacNeil: Robert Hunter, do you see any sign of a diplomatic exit that might come out of these efforts of the Iranians, the Soviets and others before the coalition launches a big ground offensive?

MR. HUNTER: I think there can be a diplomatic outcome the very moment that Saddam Hussein decides that he wants one, and he could do it a dozen different ways. Gary Sick I think has given the best, which you might call the Anwar Sadat option to the 1973 war. He can say I've attacked Israel, I've attacked Saudi Arabia, I've bloodied the Americans, aren't I great, now I can get out. He could do it with the Iranians, the Algerians, all kinds of people, but unless Saddam Hussein recognizes what's in store for him, there will be a ground campaign and I think it will go on to his destruction.

MR. MacNeil: Jim Hoagland, what do you feel about the possibilities of a diplomatic exit before a ground offensive?

MR. HOAGLAND: I was struck today that the President said very clearly we passed that option. I think as long as the military campaign goes as well as it's going now, and it appears to go very well, the President would be very reluctant to accept anything other than the conditions that he has laid out repeatedly. Now if you get into a military stalemate of some kind, which I don't expect and I don't think the President expects, then you might see the White House beginning to look for some kind of diplomatic way out, but right now, I don't think there's any chance.

MR. MacNeil: What do you think -- do you expect, Gary Sick, that Iran is going to try very hard, knowing that the big ground offensive is probably coming, is going to try very hard in the next few days to come up with something that would stop that?

MR. SICK: I think Iran has these various activities that they've done lately. Mostly it was a posturing, positioning themselves so that they can have a place at the table when things move along. The one thing that I find that I think has been ignored as far as the Iranians are concerned is that they have a very deep and abiding concern about their people, the Shii population in the South of Iraq, and if they become increasingly concerned about the welfare and health of those people, they will be increasingly drawn into doing something to protect those people, and I think that's the one thing that might, in fact, make them more active than they are now. Otherwise, I see most of this as political posturing at the moment.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah. Robert Hunter, very very briefly, do you expect a major effort to get some kind of cease-fire offer before a ground offensive is launched?

MR. HUNTER: I think the Iranians may play this card, but I disagree with Gary. I think this is a major strategic decision by Iran. To be willing to talk directly with the United States reverses 10 years of policy, it's a great achievement if we were to pick it up. It gives us a chance of trying to draw Iran constructively into the post war world, recognizing that that country's overriding need is even greater than Gorbachev's to have access to the Western economies. Just letting that section of this lie I think is, could be a real mistake on our part.

MR. MacNeil: Okay, Robert Hunter, Gary Sick, Jim Hoagland, thank you all. NEWS MAKER

MR. LEHRER: Now to the second section of Judy Woodruff's conversation with former Sec. of State Shultz. The subject is the troubled course of Soviet President Gorbachev. Judy asked how strongly the United States should speak up about the violence in the Baltics.

SEC. SHULTZ: We should be very strong in our statements about the Baltics. The Baltics, as far as we're concerned, are independent countries. We've never recognized that they were part of the Soviet Union. The flags of the Baltics hang in the lobby of the State Department this day and so that is our posture and we should say so. I was a little sorry to see the summit meeting postponed, but any way, I was glad to see it was just postponed, and I hope it's scheduled, and this is the reason. We don't like everything that's going on in the Soviet Union by a long shot, but we should engage. We should engage for many reasons. One of them is that the Soviet Union is the one country in this world that can wipe us out in 30 minutes, so we have to pay attention. Now if all you do is sit in Washington, you got to talk to the foreign minister. If you go to Moscow, you talk to everybody because they'll be there and the last time Mr. Gorbachev was in the United States he traveled around. He came to San Francisco, came to Stanford and to Minnesota, so I think it's fair enough that the President should say well, I'll come to Moscow, but I'd also like to go to a few other places like Vilnius or Tblisi or Kiev.

MS. WOODRUFF: You think the President could have done that?

SEC. SHULTZ: He could certainly make a request and if they said, no, he won't let you travel to Vilnius, he would have made a big point and an important point about our position.

MS. WOODRUFF: Are you optimistic about the future, near-term future of the Soviet Union?

SEC. SHULTZ: Well, they have great problems. That's very clear. They have immense diversity and they have to find a system of governance that recognizes that diversity, a greater sense of federalism. That's where they're heading, and there's a big fight about the degree to which power would be redistributed. As I see it, that's what's taking place. And I think they'll have quite a battle over it and of course, they just don't seem to be able to recognize that they have to change their economic system if they're going to get anywhere in economic terms.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, you know Mr. Gorbachev, you dealt with him. Why do you think it is that here he is, the architect of reform in that country, and he's now gone evidently if not the opposite direction, at least a different, a seriously different direction for the time being?

SEC. SHULTZ: Well, of course, I haven't seen him in quite a while and I don't know other than to speculate, but he is -- a situation has been created I think in part because of the lack of decisiveness in the direction that they ought to go in.

MS. WOODRUFF: You mean --

SEC. SHULTZ: On his part and others, I don't know exactly why, but it's created a situation of some chaos. And no doubt, a lot of pressure from the army and the KGB is bringing about a rather repressive reaction to that chaos and he seems to be caught up in it. I'm a little sorry to see that happen. I think the repressive actions in the Baltics were totally out of bounds and uncalled for.

MS. WOODRUFF: And do you think Mr. Gorbachev is still in charge, as we once thought that he was?

SEC. SHULTZ: Well, he's not as much in charge as he was when he first became general secretary, that's obvious, and to what degree he is being controlled by others and to what degree he's controlling things himself, I don't know, but he obviously has lost a lot of ability to shape events inside the Soviet Union.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, President Bush said he was sending Sec. of Defense Cheney and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Powell to the Persian Gulf. They are going at the end of the week to assess the Gulf War. The President also said he doubted Iraq would be defeated by air power alone, and the Treasury Department proposed major changes in the nation's banking system, including letting banks offer a broad range of financial services. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night with full Gulf news and a conversation with former Vice President Walter Mondale. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.