No go on the Golan Heights?

There is bad news this morning for the Clinton administration’s effort to stifle any public debate about the wisdom of deploying U.S. forces on the Golan Heights: Even as Defense Secretary William Perry’s helicopter tour of the Heights yesterday indicates the advanced state of planning for such a deployment, a new poll confirms that the American people overwhelmingly oppose it – and expect their elected representatives to take a hard look at any proposal to undertake this step before the United States is committed to do so.

Given that the new Congress is already deeply skeptical of Mr. Clinton’s propensity to assign U.S. troops to dubious peacekeeping missions, this data could ensure not only that this idea receives the close scrutiny it requires, but may doom the initiative altogether.

The poll was a nationwide survey of 1,000 American adults conducted Jan. 2-3. The random sample was performed by the highly regarded Luntz Research Co. — an organization headed by the public opinion wunderkind, Frank Luntz, who helped House Speaker Newt Gingrich successfully define and market his "Contract With America."

According to Mr. Luntz’s data, some 58 percent of the American people oppose a U.S. deployment on the Golan Heights, with the majority of that group (34 percent) describing themselves as "strongly opposed." By contrast, 35 percent of those polled responded that they were in favor. Only 11 percent said they were "strongly in favor."

Importantly, nearly half — 44 percent — of those who declared themselves in favor of a deployment say their position would be reversed if they believed "U.S. military personnel would probably be attacked by terrorists or be caught up in renewed fighting between Syria and Israel in the future." Although Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin minimized these dangers during his recent trip to Washington, serious risks certainly exist.

Consequently, the Luntz survey indicates that an American deployment would face even more opposition (roughly 73 percent to 20 percent) than was evident in the results of a widely quoted exit poll conducted on Nov. 8 by Fabrizio, McLaughlin pollsters for the Middle East Quarterly magazine. The latter found that 64.3 percent of those polled opposed a Golan deployment, compared to 17.9 percent in favor.

The Luntz poll also explored whether Americans might feel differently about the idea of putting U.S. government personnel on Golan Heights that they were not members of the armed forces. Of course, such a nonmilitary contingent would be still less capable of doing anything about a renewed Syrian threat to Israel and would be in even greater danger from terrorists than the sort of small, lightly armed military force the Clinton team hopes to deploy on the Golan. Some who believe the United States must be physically involved in the implementation of an Israeli-Syrian deal are nonetheless bandying this idea about -perhaps as a genuine trial balloon, more likely to confuse and divide those opposed to a U.S. military deployment there. Only 35 percent of the majority opposed to putting U.S. troops on the Golan deployment, however, said they would feel differently if nonmilitary U.S. government personnel were used instead of military ones. Fifty-six percent responded that they would still disapprove of a Golan deployment.

Of particular concern to Israelis and others who hope that an American deployment on the Golan Heights would be the cornerstone for a real and durable peace between Israel and Syria should be one other finding from this poll: Most Americans (52 percent) indicated that they expected U.S. monitors would be withdrawn from the Golan if they suffered casualties -the same practice followed in the face of terrorist attacks in Beirut and Somalia.

A further 12 percent of those polled did not know or declined to express an opinion. Just 36 percent said they thought the U.S. monitors would remain in place. In other words, no one should be under any illusion that American peacekeepers will actually be on the Golan Heights if the security situation deteriorates — the very moment at which they are likely to be most wanted there.

Finally, two-thirds of those polled wisely expressed the view that "congressional hearings [should] be held before an agreement is reached calling for U.S. participation in this peacekeeping or peace-monitoring operation on the Golan Heights." Only a little more than a quarter of those queried (28 percent) said they thought these hearings were not necessary.

As it happens, an early opportunity for Congress to hold such hearings on the Golan deployment is about to present itself. President Clinton has just nominated Martin Indyk, the National Security Council’s top policymaker on Middle East issues, to become U.S. ambassador to Israel. Mr. Indyk has been a key actor in the development of American positions concerning the Israeli-Syrian negotiations of a peace agreement, including acting as one of the hosts for Washington-based "back channel" negotiations like those that produced the disastrous Oslo accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization. The new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Jesse Helms, is on the record as opposing a U.S. deployment on the Golan. His Committee’s action on the Indyk nomination will, at a minimum, afford a vehicle for examining why the Clinton administration thinks Mr. Helms and the majority of Americans are wrong.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is the director of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.