Presumably we would be able to see signs and portents locally in Warsaw.

As it happened, the instructions came in when we were in the final stages of an embassy paddle tennis tournament, not the biggest thing in the world of sport but an event taken with commendable seriousness in the local US community. Washington would probably not have been greatly amused to know we finished the tournament first before setting about the duties that had been laid upon us, but I like to think we showed a proper sense of proportion at a tense moment.

It was one of those raw, bone-chilling nights you get in Eastern Europe as embassy officers made their way across town in twos and threes, some on foot, others driving. I saw the teams as they returned, tired, half-frozen. They all told the same story. They had seen absolutely nothing. Government buildings were pitch black, with the normal complement of semi-comatose guards. Ministry of Defense, Foreign Ministry, Party Central Committee building, railroad stations, airport, barracks areas, Soviet embassy and housing area—all quiet as was usual in Warsaw on a freezing Sunday night in December. The only unusual activity in the entire city, they reported dryly, was the American embassy, lit up like a transatlantic liner on a dark and empty ocean. We fired in a late-night message to the Department, knowing wiser heads would make sense of these unremarkable findings.

In part because the November and December scares came to nothing, in part because of what I had heard from Brzezinski and Davies, in part because of my own developing sense of the realities around me, I soon found myself almost completely preoccupied with the Polish domestic political situation and less intent on the Soviet military threat. From what we continued to hear and read, Moscow seemed deeply frustrated over Poland, exasperated at the inability of the Polish party leadership to grasp the nettle and put Solidarity in its place with whatever means necessary. The Soviets seemed unsure themselves of the course they should take. Sending troops in looked more and more problematic as time went on.

While I grew skeptical about Soviet intervention in late 1980 and impressed as the various crises came and went in the succeeding months with their concurrent difficulties and uncertainties, I have to say I thought Soviet intervention was again in the cards in the fall of 1981. The Polish leadership looked increasingly feckless [Stanisław] Kania's replacement as First Secretary by [Wojciech] Jaruzelski did not seem to indicate a radically new course. I ruled out the possibility that Moscow was prepared to lose control of Poland-just to let it go, like that. If the political slide continued, if Solidarity won a substantial measure of power, if Soviet strategic interests were seriously threatened, then it seemed to me they would send in troops.

With these judgements in mind, I find the record of the Soviet Politburo 10 December 1981 session contained in the Jachranka documents quite extraordinary-I feel I

owe an apology for the dark thoughts I used to harbor about what I now see was an amiable, laid-back bunch of geriatric Rotarians. Who could have imagined, apart maybe from his mother-she knew her boy had a heart of gold-[KGB chief Iurii] Andropov saying that "even if Poland falls under the control of 'Solidarity,' that's the way it will be"? (Had no one ever bothered to tell him about the Brezhnev Doctrine?)

Equally curious is the absence of any dissent from this revolutionary (better, counterrevolutionary) view on the part of the others. It is true, the records of earlier 1981 Politburo sessions document a temporizing, undynamic Soviet leadership, but it is a revelation to see they had become such complete pussycats. And if that was their shirokaya natura showing, and they were all that relaxed about Poland doing its own thing, it sure would have made things an awful lot easier for Kania and Jaruzelski if they had told them earlier, instead of doing things like sending that nasty June [1981] letter.

I find equally striking, suspicious even-which shows I am geriatric Soviet hand myself-the unanimity with which the Politburo rejects at the same meeting the idea of military action in Poland, without anything resembling real debate. Admittedly they knew by now they had bitten off more than they felt like chewing in Afghanistan, and could not have relished the risks a massive Polish operation would have brought with it. Even so, to read in the record someone of [Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei A.] Gromyko's steel declaring that "there cannot be any introduction of troops into Poland" has a surreal quality. Just as mind-bending is the fact that someone with Suslov's curriculum vitae is reported as speaking after Gromyko of only press handling of the Polish "counterrevolutionary forces." Press handling? Did he hear what Gromyko said?

I was struck by Jaruzelski's reaction—as noted in Raymond Garthoff's report'-to Kulikov's insistence that the USSR at no time had plans to intervene militarily. It is not difficult to imagine the reasons for Jaruzelski's exasperation. If anyone on the Polish side could judge the reality of the Soviet threat, it must surely be he. Of course, the General wanted the threat to be seen and accepted as real so that he could sell the Polish people, and the world at large, the patriotic explanation for martial law, so he might not have been wholly candid. I still think, however, that his exasperation springs from experience of how close the threat came at times.

Brzezinski was a central player in the late 1980 events and his views on Carter's hot line message of December 3, as a factor in the Soviet decision not to intervene, have to be given due weight. I can only say that the US warnings, in general, struck me as largely pro forma exercises. It was right for us to do it--we had to do something-and I have no doubt the Soviets took them seriously, as they took any major US statement seriously. However, I would judge the imponderables of taking military action in Poland as

by far the most crucial element for them.

A couple of personal Polish views of our warnings to the Soviets give other insights. Deputy Premier Mieczysław Rakowski told me in mid-December 1980 that we were greatly exaggerating the danger. The Soviets had no intention of coming in. He welcomed the warnings nevertheless if only because they had the effect of slowing Solidarity down, making it behave more responsibly. Rakowski was pleased at this unexpected bonus. Bogdan Lis of Solidarity, on the other hand, was extremely unhappy with the US statements when I saw him not long afterwards. He complained they were exactly what the Soviets and the Polish regime wanted-here he corroborated Rakowski-in that they made the reform movement cautious at a time when it should have gone all out to exert maximum pressure on the regime. Lis, who gave the impression of being one of the hard men of Polish politics, went on to excoriate Radio Free Europe broadcasts for taking the regime's side-a view, I tried to convince him, I had never heard from any official Polish quarter.

I described Poland in 1980-81 as largely outside our ability to influence decisively. Some might think this less than red-blooded. The "can-do" strain in US policy-making runs strong, which is a good thing, too. Washington players conceptualize, sloganize—that goes with the scene. Warsaw again brought me up against the limits of US action on the ground in Eastern Europe. My judgement was that while there were useful things we could and should do to help the Polish reformers, we remained marginal on the basics: the power struggle in Poland itself and the Soviet intervention threat.

I was concerned that we not over-extend ourselves in a situation that could easily get away from us. I got a flash message from the Department in the summer of 1981 asking my views on a US military airlift of food (discussed in Romuald Spasowski's 1986 autobiography The Liberation of One). I argued strongly against it on various grounds, the most important being that a US Air Force airlift would raise Poland to a direct US-Soviet confrontation in a region that was much easier for them to control. If the Soviets challenged us, our options would be unattractive either to back off with major loss of face, or hang tough and run serious risks. The Department did not return to the matter.

I cannot claim more than a general sense of the relations between the Polish government and Solidarity in the month or so before martial law-specifically, whether there was either room for compromise or the will on either side for a genuine search for compromise. The relations were highly complex. Negotiations covered the entire range of social, economic and political issues-virtually the whole life of the country. The inner workings on both sides were often opaque. I was impressed by the Poles ability to find ways out of a seemingly total impasse and to step back from the brink. Everyone realized it was a struggle for power, however. The stakes grew larger, the

room for maneuver smaller as time went on. Both sides knew their Lenin-there was no mistake, it was kto kogo. I went back to the US the last week of November [1981] on consultation, and did not return to Poland until after martial law was declared. Before leaving Warsaw I arranged to meet with (then) Archbishop Glemp, Jaruzelski, and [Solidarity leader Lech] Wałęsa in order to be able to give Washington a sense of how the three main Polish players saw things. The meetings remain vivid political snapshots practically on the eve of martial law. The Primate spoke of a seriously deteriorating situation and of how he was trying to mediate between the regime and Solidarity, to hold them together in negotiation. He was not optimistic. The overriding problem was that the party hardliners were in the ascendant. I was struck by the bearish tone, which contrasted sharply with my meeting with him the previous month. He told me then that there was a good chance of martial law. I reported this to Washington but without giving it particular weight.

Wałęsa was deeply concerned about the fate of the reform movement. Solidarity was entering an absolutely crucial phase in its forthcoming negotiations with the government. It was, as he put it, very near the top of the hill, but it would have to be careful or else it could go over the top and slide quickly down the other side a prophecy soon fulfilled.

He gave me a scheme for the next month or so, until the end of the year. Solidarity planned to drag its feet in negotiations during that time. In the meantime he wanted a massive economic aid offer from Western governments -to be made to Solidarity, not to the regime. This would be his trump card which he could produce in the latter stages of the negotiations, when he would make clear the aid was available to the government only on condition that Solidarity's basic demands were met.

I cannot say whether Wałęsa was giving a finished Solidarity position to which they were committed, or if he was floating personal views. Nor do I know if Solidarity actually followed the Wałęsa scheme in the time remaining before martial law-there was certainly no aid offer for him to work with. I tried to disabuse him of the idea that massive aid would be forthcoming quickly, if it could be realized at all. I knew the debate on aid on the US side was not particularly promising, and I did not see the West Europeans doing all that much. Wałęsa said the reform movement could still achieve its goals without major aid, but the struggle would last longer and the Polish people would have to endure even greater hardships.

Wałęsa was in tremendous form all evening-we had dinner at our house with our wives and a few other Americans and Poles. He completely dominated the conversation with rapid-fire delivery of ideas and opinions on everything under the sun, hardly letting the rest of us get a word in, moving from the very serious to quick wisecracks without any loss of pace or force. We talked about Jaruzelski, and I said I had only made it to

army sergeant and still had a queasy feeling when dealing with four-star generals. He came back immediately— sergeants were nothing much—it was corporals you had to watch out for he had been a corporal himself-and there was Napoleon—and then "there was that other corporal as well." We knew we were looking at one of the great political naturals.

I met with Jaruzelski the same day the Primate warned me there was a good chance of martial law. I still regret the professional goof of not telling the general I had heard martial law was coming and asking his views. I doubt he would have "fessed up" and given dates and times, but I should have had the wit to get him on the record.

By the time I saw him Jaruzelski must have assumed Colonel Kukliński, now missing from his duties for a couple of weeks, was in US hands, and we were fully aware of the planning for a military strike against Solidarity. He could easily have avoided a meeting. For all he knew I might have appeared armed with instructions to ask awkward questions about the regime's intentions. The US might have been about to launch a political campaign that could cause problems in the immediate run-up to martial law. Perhaps a reason for seeing me was to mislead deliberately by a pretence of business as usual even after the Kukliński affair. The hour was unusualwe met from eight-thirty till ten at night-but there was certainly nothing vastly new or different in what he had to say from our previous meetings.

Jaruzelski restated the government's commitment to broad national consensus. It did not have to follow this policy-it had reserves of power that had not been used. "Some people" accused it of being weak for negotiating with Solidarity "with the strike pistol aimed at us," but it intended to continue seeking agreement. However, the crisis facing the state could not continue indefinitely.

Not everything Solidarity did suited him, he said, but there were forces in the union that could be worked with. Marginal, radical elements were moving way from the mainstream. Solidarity realized it was not enough just to fight the authorities. It was essential to reach a settlement on the enterprise self-management law, otherwise all the other agreements would be useless.

On our bilateral relations Jaruzelski said the West Europeans were waiting for a positive US lead on economic aid, and he asked for a positive approach from us in advance of the EC summit which was to be held shortly. He stressed the importance of our agricultural deliveries within the Commodity Credit Corporation framework, and said he wanted to send the minister of agriculture to the US to discuss technology, fertilizers, pesticides and related matters. We had their list of requirements in industrial and semi-finished goods, spare parts, and raw materials. Vice Premier Zbigniew Madej's visit to Washington in December would be a good occasion to pursue these topics.

If this was all an act, the general did it well-worth an Oscar nomination. It sounded much the same in tone and

substance as I had heard from him before. He struck me again as moderate, realistic-the cool political soldier. Personally he seemed, as before, reserved, tense, basically a loner. Had he already set the date for martial law when he saw me? I am inclined to think the decision to strike was taken closer to the actual event, but I might only be trying to excuse my inability to see the cloven hoof sticking out at the foot of those razor-crease uniform pants with the broad red stripe.

Debate on Jaruzelski's patriotism strikes me as a more than slightly red herring. He was and is a Pole-I suspect more now than he was then. People who were in a position to know told me he thought the worst thing the US ever did to him was [U.S. Secretary of Defense Casper] Weinberger's one-liner on a TV show that he was a Soviet general in a Polish uniform. That really got to him. But if he was a Pole, he was the top Polish Communist power handler in a tight spot, completely devoted to maintaining party control of the system, and also completely committed to the Soviet connection. He may well have wanted to avoid Soviet military intervention, possible occupation, but he also wanted to put the reform movement back in its cage. My guess is the latter objective was the primary motivation in a convenient coincidence of goals and interests—but I was wrong on the Soviet politburo and I could be wrong again.

Colonel Kukliński was a very brave man. The operation to bring him and his family to the West-the planning and the action itself-made for an edgy week or so in the embassy, and no doubt it was an excruciatingly anxious time for the Kuklińskis themselves. The operation's success reflected much credit on the Kuklińskis for their courage and on the professionalism of those involved on the US side. My role was minimal-to support the people who were doing the work. I hope I looked calmer than I felt. If it had all gone wrong, if the colonel had been caught before he could get away, or if the extraction operation had been discovered while it was in progress, things would have been messy.

I am not sure it would have made all that much difference if we had tipped off the Solidarity leadership about the regime's planning for a strike against them on the basis of the information Kukliński provided. They would not have been much surprised to learn the generals were thinking nasty things about them. I believe they assumed that to be the case from very early on. What they would have wanted to know-as I would have—was the date of martial law, and Kukliński did not give us that so far as I know.

I say "so far as I know” because I did not see all of his reporting. The CIA provided me with summaries from time to time. I remember the material as largely technical-organizational in nature. It must have been of great use to our military analysts, but what I saw lacked broader political scope, and I lost sight somewhat of the colonel's reporting in the press of more urgent business in the months before martial law.