A Rallying Round for Reagan

By WALTER ISAACSON

His handling of Lebanon and Grenada boosts his standing

During the singing of The Battle Hymn of the Republic, the voice of a small boy I could be heard among the I rows of mourners. "Where's my daddy?" he asked. His mother hugged him and cried. President Ronald Reagan, who later told aides "this is not the happiest of my days as President, but it's one of my proudest," had come to Camp Lejeune, N.C., home base of the 24th Marine Amphibious Unit, for a memorial service honoring the 230 U.S. servicemen killed in Beirut and the 18 killed in Grenada. There he was given a poem by Scott Scialabba, whose 14th birthday is this Thursday, about the father he lost in Beirut: "My life is full of sadness upon this gloomy day,/ My father is in heaven and all the birds have flown away." Afterward, standing in the chilly rain at a nearby airbase, Reagan tried to explain the sacrifice. "We commit our resources and risk the lives of those in our armed forces to rescue others from bloodshed and turmoil and to prevent humankind from drowning in a sea of tyranny," he said. "The world looks to America for leadership, and America looks to the men in its armed forces."

The confused public mixture of exhilaration and anxiety brought on by the rapid-fire events in Lebanon and Grenada presented Reagan with one of the most critical challenges of his presidency. The Beirut tragedy had brutally underscored the risks of his ill-defined purposes in Lebanon. The armed assault in Grenada threatened to reify his image as a gunslinger. Yet--at least for the moment--he has been able to channel and perhaps even capitalize on the complex emotions aroused by both events. Despite the Administration's continued worry about the situation in Lebanon, it has been able to win surprising acceptance for the projection of American power abroad. Indeed, as Democratic Pollster Peter Hart noted, "Reagan has ended the week stronger than he began it."

Perhaps the most important factor was the instinctive tendency of Americans to rally behind the presidency in times of international turmoil. In addition, Reagan was aided by the successful outcome of the Grenadian operation. The U.S. medical students who were evacuated from the island loudly expressed their gratitude, and the White House plans to hold a ceremony with a number of them this week to hammer home the point. The evidence Reagan was able to reveal about a planned Cuban-Soviet buildup on that minuscule island provided, albeit after the fact, additional justification for the American action. Although the hazardous situation of U.S. forces in Lebanon caused widespread dismay, the anger and frustration over the Beirut bombing seemed to be counterbalanced by the relatively clean strike in the Caribbean. New Hampshire Democrat Robert Stephen, a state senator whose son took part in the Grenada invasion, describes the impression he got from talking to his constituents and customers at his Manchester restaurant: "The President might have been hurt by what happened in Beirut, but he made that up in Grenada."

Through careful tracking of public opinion polls, the White House was able to confirm that the President has been temporarily helped by the tumultuous events. Just before the Beirut disaster two weeks ago, private White House polls showed his approval rating had reached a high point for recent months of close to 60%. That showed immediate slippage when news of the carnage shocked the public. The first bulletins on Grenada seemed to have even more negative impact. But after the news from the island began to come out, and after Reagan went on television with one of the most polished performances of his presidency, his standing was restored. Said one top adviser to the President: "We really believe that everything turned out well."

Reagan's own confidence that the events had crested in his favor was reflected in a feisty appearance he made last Thursday night before a reunion of workers from his 1980 campaign. "Under this Administration our nation is through wringing its hands and apologizing," he said to enthusiastic cheers. "We all grieve over the lives of those splendid young men lost in Beirut and Grenada. But I just have to believe we can honor their memory best not by withdrawing from our role in the world, but by remaining the force for freedom and peace that makes America the brightest star of hope in the world today." His best applause line was a purely political one. He told the faithful followers that their work made possible the 1980 victory, "and will make it so again in '84!" Besides being the closest he has come verbally to a formal announcement, the line laid to rest speculation that the strain of the past two weeks might prompt Reagan to reconsider his plans to run for reelection.

Reagan was also combative at a brief press conference last Thursday called to announce the appointment of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as special Middle East envoy. A newsman asked about comparisons of the Grenada action with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. "Well, for heaven's sakes, anyone who would link Afghanistan to this operation .. ." sputtered the President testily. "Against all the opposition of the Afghanistan people [the Soviets] have used every vicious form of warfare including chemical warfare." Reagan also took issue with calling the operation in Grenada an invasion, even though he initially used the term himself. "This was a rescue mission," he avowed.

The public seemed to agree. "The reaction has been gung-ho support for the President," says Michael Jackson, Los Angeles radio host whose call-in program is heard around the country. Nebraska Governor Bob Kerrey, a Democrat and Viet Nam War veteran, notes, "The support for Grenada is there and it's strong." When the Cable News Network solicited phone calls on Grenada, "the response was overwhelmingly in favor of the President's action," says Anchorwoman Beverly Williams. "Coming on the heels of Beirut and the frustration over the deaths there, it was something to cheer about. People seemed to be saying they want a more forceful country, one that is not afraid to keep the Communists in check."

The public was less sure about keeping the Marines in Lebanon. Chuck Green, editorial page editor of the Denver Post, says that readers are evenly split on that issue. "There is a sense of futility about the Marines being sitting ducks. Most people seem to look at the Grenada invasion as being justified." Some Democrats predicted that the tragedy in Lebanon, along with the invasion of Grenada, might eventually add to public worries that Reagan is reckless with the use of military force. "The combination of Beirut and Grenada has hurt the President in Wisconsin," said Matthew Flynn, chairman of the state's Democratic Party. "He's had this nice-guy image. But there's a new feeling that the brakes are no longer on."

The prevailingly positive public mood was reflected in Congress, where the critical outbursts that erupted two weeks ago were more muted last week. With the help of Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill and the Democratic leadership, the Administration beat back, by a 274-to-153 vote, an attempt in the House to cut off funds for the Marines in Beirut. Lee Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat, expressed the feeling of most members when he argued that withdrawing the Marines would damage the fragile peace talks under way in Geneva, hurt the government of Lebanon and help Syria have its way in the Middle East. The most intense discussions over Lebanon occurred in committee investigations into who was responsible for defining the military role of the Marines in Lebanon and who should be blamed for the obvious lapse in security there.

The House did take some action on Grenada, passing by an overwhelming 403-to-23 vote a resolution that would apply the War Powers Act to the troops on the island and require that they be withdrawn in 60 days unless an extension is granted. Since Reagan announced last week that the withdrawal was already beginning, the vote was motivated mainly by a desire to assert Congress's disputed authority under the War Powers Act rather than actually to direct Administration policy. Far more indicative of Congress's attitude was the favorable action taken on the fiscal 1984 defense budget. The House followed the Senate and by a close vote (217 to 208) approved funds for the MX missile and by a wider margin (247 to 175) funds for the B-l bomber.

Not that Congress has suppressed all of its doubts about U.S. policy. Speaker O'Neill designated a delegation of 14 House members to investigate the situation in Grenada; the group departed for the island on Friday. And those involved in the hearings on Lebanon remained dedicated to changing what they regard as the Marines' impossible status there. Says Democratic Congressman Bill Alexander of Arkansas: "We're seeing the beginning of the debate on Reagan's foreign policy."

The debate is likely to be sharp. Although Congress held off on taking any substantive action in opposition to Reagan's policies, some members voiced their deep reservations. Democratic Congressman Clarence Long of Maryland, one of the sponsors of the failed attempt to force the withdrawal of the Marines from Lebanon, spoke for many when he said that U.S. policy in Beirut "is based on the phony theory that if you put American uniformed men there, the enemy won't shoot at them. The theory has been blown up along with the Marine barracks." O'Neill, who supports keeping the troops in Lebanon, assailed the President on Grenada: "You cannot justify any government, whether it's Russia or the U.S., trampling on another nation." He also broadly criticized Reagan's handling of world affairs, saying, "He has no knowledge or no talent of the things that are happening there."

The most hostile response on Grenada last week came in the U.N. General Assembly. The 108-to-9 vote deploring U.S. "armed intervention" (compared with the January 1980 vote against the Soviet Union on Afghanistan of 104 to 18) reflected the mindless anti-Americanism of that body. Only Israel, El Salvador and the six other nations involved in the invasion joined the U.S. in opposing the resolution.

Final judgment, both at home and abroad, on the tough U.S. stands in Lebanon and Grenada will of course depend on what eventually happens in those areas. Reagan is dispatching his two special envoys to follow force with diplomacy. Richard Stone is going to Central America to see if the military display in Grenada has produced a greater willingness to negotiate on the part of the rebels fighting in El Salvador; Rumsfeld will try to promote progress toward peace in the Middle East.

The envoys' missions dramatize the issue now paramount in most people's minds: Where do we go from here? While conceding that Reagan has won some temporary political support, Democratic Pollster Hart argues, "The more important thing is where attitudes will be three or six months from now. One of the questions the President will have to deal with is whether the world is a safer place than it was four years earlier." The way Reagan gets the Marines out of Grenada and Lebanon, rather than the way he got them in, will be crucial in determining whether he is considered laudably tough or dangerously bellicose. --By Walter Isaacson. Reported by Sam Allis and Laurence I. Barrett/Washington, with other bureaus.

With reporting by Sam Allis, Laurence I. Barrett This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.