"Why Did This Happen?"

By Jacob V. Lamar Jr

In a sweltering helicopter hangar at a naval station in Florida, faced by more than a thousand tearful mourners, Ronald Reagan performed one of those tasks he does best. Honoring young Americans who have lost their lives in one of their country's fitful attempts to assert itself in a troubled world has, alas, become for him a practiced ritual. Speaking somberly of the latest tragedy, and of the latest set of victims he called heroes, the President asked, "Why did this happen?"

It was a question that had reverberated on many levels throughout the week, as the nation tried to understand how a senseless military mishap and a puzzling American role in a faraway war had somehow combined to cost the lives of 37 sailors trapped in their bunks aboard the U.S.S. Stark. "Americans today," the President noted, "know the price of freedom in this uneasy world." And then, once again, a bugler played taps.

The blindsiding of an American frigate caught with its defenses down by an Exocet missile seemed, on one level, nothing more than a tragic accident. No harm intended. No one really to blame. Regret and reparations offered. Yet, curiously, the fact that the tragedy seemed so dreadfully meaningless caused its ripples to swell and become more troublesome as the week wore on. A nation that had committed itself to building an expensive 600-ship Navy began to worry whether the ships might be sitting ducks whenever they sailed into harm's way. A nation that has been unable since Viet Nam to feel truly comfortable asserting its global role began to feel gun-shy about protecting its national interests even in the strategically critical Persian Gulf. A nation that takes pride in the bravery of its fighting forces again tried to understand why servicemen were killed performing political missions in which they were not supposed to fight.

The Reagan Administration swiftly tried to defuse the crisis, minimizing its significance. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger characterized the attack ; as a "single, horrible error on the part of the Iraqi pilot" who mistook the frigate for an Iranian tanker. Iraq's President Saddam Hussein promptly sent an apology to the U.S. "I hope this unintentional incident," he wrote, "will not affect our relations and the common desire to establish peace and stability in the region." The Iraqis also agreed to pay compensation to the families of the victims and reparations for damages to the $180 million ship.

Had it been on, the Stark's Phalanx defense system would probably have been able to spray a Gatling-gun burst that could have turned the incoming missile into a brief footnote to the news. The Stark was sailing at Condition Three, the middle of five stages of alert, and its weapons systems were supposed to be fully manned and operational. But there was an inexplicable lapse, with key radars failing to detect the missile's launch and the Phalanx system remaining off. This was clearly a tragic failure for a vessel sailing in an area where more than 200 ships have been attacked during the past three years. "Everybody in town knew there was a war going on in the gulf except the Navy," says Jeffrey Record, a military analyst with the Hudson Institute. The Navy appointed a board of inquiry to examine possible lapses in judgment and equipment, but it cautioned against drawing too many conclusions about the vulnerability of the American Navy.

"The problem was the unclear circumstances of the Stark's mission," says Naval Analyst Norman Polmar. "The captain didn't know whether he was at war or peace." Yet despite charges that the Navy's mission in the Persian Gulf was poorly defined, it was in fact the most traditional of all naval roles: helping keep essential sea-lanes open and showing the flag in a region of vital interest.

Much of the criticism of the Reagan Administration's push for a 600-ship Navy has been that it is designed for a dubious new mission: threatening the Soviet mainland during the early stages of a superpower showdown. Journalist Jack Beatty, writing in the May issue of the Atlantic magazine, argues that the Navy should concentrate more on its less glamorous time-honored role -- which happens to be what the Stark was doing last week. One problem, however, is that the vulnerability and cost of America's large aircraft carriers mean that the Navy does not feel safe stationing one inside the shallow and crowded waters of the Persian Gulf, thus making air cover for ships in the region more difficult.

In an effort to make clear that he did not intend for U.S. ships to be in defenseless positions, the President announced that all vessels in the gulf were told to take a far more defensive posture. "From now on," he told a Chattanooga, Tenn., high school, "if aircraft approach any of our ships in a way that appears hostile, there is one order of battle: defend yourselves, defend American lives."

More significantly, Reagan reasserted the American role in the Persian Gulf and in fact extended it. The Administration announced it had decided to fly the U.S. flag over eleven oil tankers belonging to Kuwait, an oil-rich Persian Gulf state whose ships have frequently been bombed by Iranian planes. The reflagged Kuwaiti tankers will be entitled to U.S. Navy protection.

The Administration defended American presence in the gulf as vital to the nation's security. "Were a hostile power ever to dominate this strategic region and its resources," Reagan said at the memorial service at Mayport Naval Station, "it would become a choke point for freedom -- that of our allies and our own." Weinberger stressed that if the U.S. backed down, the Soviets would move in. "We simply cannot allow the Kremlin to have its will over this region," he said last week. "We will not be intimidated. We will not be driven from the gulf." Indeed, Moscow pre-empted the U.S. in aiding Kuwait; the Kuwaitis currently lease three Soviet tankers.

Within the Administration, there was a debate over whether to consult officially with Congress about the decision to protect Kuwaiti tankers. The 1973 War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress if American forces are being placed in "situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated." At a tense White House meeting, Chief of Staff Howard Baker and Attorney General Edwin Meese urged the President to invoke the War Powers Resolution while Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz argued against it. In the end, the President decided that the situation did not call for the resolution.

Congress would not let Reagan off the hook. "We need to rethink exactly what we are doing in the Persian Gulf," said Republican Senate Leader Bob Dole, a candidate to succeed Reagan. "What are our goals? What is our strategy? What are the risks? And how much cost are we willing to pay?" Dole co-sponsored a resolution with Democrat Robert Byrd requiring that the , President present Congress with an analysis of those questions. Said Byrd: "I believe that it is appropriate to ask the Administration to provide the Congress with a full report before we implement any agreement with the Kuwaiti government." The Senate passed the measure by a 91-to-5 vote.

What bothered many Congressmen was that the Administration seemed to be using the military to make a symbolic diplomatic statement. Deploying sailors as peace enforcers in the gulf revived memories of the ill-conceived deployment of Marines in Beirut, which left 241 servicemen dead after a surprise truck bombing. Although it has never fought a declared war, the Reagan Administration has witnessed the loss of at least 331 servicemen since it took office.*

In addition, Congress expressed dismay over Saudi Arabia's failure to intercept the Iraqi jet after an AWACS radar plane operated jointly by Saudis and Americans spotted it. Displeasure over the incident was so great that the Reagan Administration last week delayed submitting a proposal to sell new F-15 fighter jets to the Saudis. Remarked Byrd with considerable understatement: "I think it would have a tough ride right now."

There was concern expressed in Congress and elsewhere that U.S. allies were not doing enough to protect their interests in the Persian Gulf. The critics noted that while 25% of Western Europe's oil and 60% of Japan's comes from the gulf region, only 7% of America's does. "The U.S. is not alone interested in the area," declared Florida Democrat Charles Bennett. "The U.S. alone should not bear the burden of its security." The Administration argued that regardless of the depth of our allies' commitment in the gulf, it was still in America's best interest to ensure the safety of oil shipments. To do nothing, said Secretary Weinberger, "ignores the fact that the world oil market is one market, and should Persian Gulf oil supplies be disrupted or stopped, then oil prices would rise for everyone."

The U.S. has officially avoided taking sides in the 6 1/2-year-old war between Iran and Iraq. In 1984 the warring nations began attacking each other's oil shipments and, inevitably, hitting tankers from third countries in the region. Iran's favorite targets have been ships going to and from Kuwait, an ally of Iraq. The U.S. now publicly blames Iran for prolonging the war. Despite its botched arms-for-hostages deal with Iran, the Administration has been urging other countries to cut off military shipments to that nation, and last week it requested that the Soviet Union put similar pressure on East bloc countries and North Korea.

The Stark and other members of the Navy's Middle East patrol were showing the flag in the Persian Gulf. The Administration believed neither of the warring nations would dare attack a vessel traveling in the shadow of a U.S. warship for fear of American retaliation. Says a State Department official of the display of American military might in the gulf: "It's what gives our policy teeth." Following America's lead, Soviet naval boats also began patrolling the gulf.

After the attack, the Administration seemed as eager to blame Iran as it was to forgive Iraq. Reagan called Iran the "villain in the piece." While the Iranians were not directly involved in the incident, they have upped the stakes in the gulf war in recent months by installing Chinese-made Silkworm missiles near the Strait of Hormuz. Last week the Iranian government gloated over the Stark catastrophe. "The great Satan is trapped," exulted Iranian Prime Minister Mir Hussein Mousavi. "The Persian Gulf is not a safe place for the superpowers, and it is not in their interest to enter these quicksands."

Indeed, the Persian Gulf has proved to be nearly as hostile an environment for the Soviets as it is for the U.S. About 36 hours before the assault on the Stark, a Soviet tanker, accompanied by a U.S.S.R. navy frigate, struck a mine some 35 miles from the Kuwaiti coast. There were no casualties, but the tanker was effectively crippled. On May 6, an Iranian gunboat opened fire on a 6,459- ton Soviet freighter; it marked the first time that Iran had struck a vessel traveling under the flag of a superpower. The Iranian government reportedly assured the Soviets that the assault was unauthorized and had been waged by a rogue band of Revolutionary Guards. The Soviets accepted the explanation and did not retaliate.

What would happen if Iran hit an American ship or a Kuwaiti one flying the Stars and Stripes? When reporters asked Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy how the U.S. would respond, he replied, "Iran would be reluctant to engage the U.S. militarily because of concern over our response." Murphy pointed out that no American ship had been hit in the past and claimed that Iranian officials had assured the Administration that Iran would not strike U.S. vessels. Pressed, however, Murphy admitted, "There is a risk there. We don't deny it." An Iranian attack, he added somewhat ominously, "would add a new dimension to the war."

The White House immediately dissociated itself from Murphy's remarks. "We disagree with Murphy," said Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater. "Our position is that reflagging is just a deterrent but does not represent an increase in hostilities in any way." The dispute left many wondering, and worrying, about what the U.S. response would be if one of the Kuwaiti ships it is protecting were attacked by Iran. "We've now put a symbol out there in the Persian Gulf," said Senator John Glenn. "If they're sunk, what are we prepared to do?"

The waves from the attack on the Stark raised even more fundamental questions about what America is prepared to do. The issue of what global commitments it is willing to make has caused the U.S. to squirm ever since its disastrous involvement in Viet Nam. Each succeeding tragedy involving American lives twitches a neo-isolationist nerve. The lesson of Viet Nam, many argue, is that the U.S. should resist the urge to send troops blundering into explosive regions where they are destined to be snared in regional quarrels and nationalist conflicts. Vague, lofty notions of maintaining an American empire are not worth the loss of our soldiers' lives.

But if the American public should decide that the nation has no worthwhile role to play in the Persian Gulf or that the commitment there is not worth the price, it would be the most serious retreat yet from the leadership role the U.S. assumed after World War II. Until that time, Britain had considered the Middle East part of its sphere of influence and sought to protect Western interests there. Britain's global retreat in the wake of the war marked the emergence of America's world role. Washington resisted Soviet probes into Iran in 1946, and since then has played a dominant role in the region. Under what became known as the Carter Doctrine, for example, the U.S. declared the Persian Gulf to be an area of vital strategic interest and pledged to defend it militarily from any incursions by the Soviet Union or any other nation.

During his six years in office, Ronald Reagan, with a strategic doctrine based on his rhetoric about "standing tall," has readily deployed American military might near trouble spots around the world. He is certain to resist any attempts to scale back the U.S. presence in the gulf. Said the President last week: "As we grieve the loss of our brave sons, let no one doubt our resolve to protect our vital interests in the Persian Gulf or anywhere else."

| Reagan readily acknowledged the difficulty of such a task at Friday's memorial service. Recounting the sorrow of an Iowa couple who lost all five of their sons in a World War II battle, he said, "In some ways, it was easier to bear then because it was easier to understand why we were there, why we were fighting." Then he added sadly, "The burden of our time is so different."

FOOTNOTE: *Besides the 37 on the Stark and the 241 in Beirut, these include two airmen killed during the Libyan raid, one downed over Syria, 19 killed in hostile action in Beirut, seven in Central America, 18 during the "rescue" mission in Grenada and six by terrorist acts directed against military personnel.

With reporting by David S. Jackson/Bahrain and Barrett Seaman and Bruce van Voorst/Washington