News |

CLINTON: 1 YEAR ONLY IN BOSNIA

President Clinton told a skeptical American public Monday night that “we must not turn our backs on Bosnia now” and should send 20,000 troops to the former Yugoslavia because U.S. vital interests and leadership are at stake in Europe.

In a 22-minute address from the Oval Office, Clinton said the U.S. role as peacekeepers in Bosnia-Herzegovina will be limited to no more than a year. The mission will be clearly defined, with the authority to respond swiftly and forcefully to any threats to our troops’ safety, he emphasized.

No deployment can be risk-free, he said bluntly in response to many Americans who fear that he is embarking on a dangerous, unwise venture that could bring heavy loss of life to U.S. soldiers.

“I assume full responsibility for any harm that may come to them,” he said in an address that could be critical to his presidency. “But anyone contemplating any action that would endanger our troops should know this: America protects its own. Anyone who takes on our troops will suffer the consequences. We will fight fire with fire–and then some.”

The president described the war as Europe’s “worst nightmare since World War II.” But while calling Central Europe “a region of the world that is vital to our national interests,” he did not specifically put Bosnia in this “vital” category.

Clinton said that once he approves a NATO plan for sending troops to Bosnia to enforce the peace accord negotiated in Dayton, he will immediately ask for congressional support.

But it was clear from his address that he is prepared to act without it. The White House said it is confident that Congress and the public would endorse his moves.

Having attacked Clinton in the past for what they described as “waffling” on Bosnia, congressional Republicans assumed a more conciliatory posture.

“The president has the authority and the power under the Constitution to do what he feels should be done, regardless of what Congress does,” Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) said in a floor speech.

Although many lawmakers acknowledged Clinton’s constitutional perogative–and the necessity of maintaining the American commitment to NATO–few on Capitol Hill were willing to voice support for the Bosnian mission.

In trying to make his case for U.S. intervention in Bosnia, Clinton faced one of his toughest political challenges. Not only is the nation less inclined to support such involvements with the end of the Cold War, but many Americans have expressed deep concern about sending troops to a country torn by centuries of ethnic and racial conflict.

Clinton’s task is all the more daunting because it comes during the early stages of the 1996 presidential campaign. If the mission lasts a year as he outlined in his speech, the military intervention could become a major campaign issue, especially if there are heavy American casualties.

The “implementation force” of some 60,000 NATO troops would begin deploying in Bosnia shortly after the peace agreement is formally signed in Paris in mid-December, Clinton said. A small number of American troops will be part of a NATO advance mission that goes to Bosnia next week to lay the groundwork for the deployment, Clinton added.

The president spoke in a determined, unemotional voice. His speech appealed to both the benevolence of Americans to support ending the killing in Bosnia and to their sense of the nation’s role as the leader in a post-Cold War era plagued by ethnic and religious conflict, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and drug trafficking.

“Just as surely as fascism and communism, these forces threaten freedom and democracy, peace and prosperity,” he said. “And they, too, demand American leadership.”

The president said the U.S. cannot and should not be the world’s policeman. “We cannot stop all war for all time,” he said. “But we can stop some wars. We cannot save all women and all children. But we can save many. We can’t do everything. But we must do what we can.”

Without the U.S. to lead the Western alliance, he said, “the peace will collapse. The war will re-ignite. The slaughter of innocents will begin again.”

Then, he said, the conflict “would spread like poison throughout the region and eat away at Europe’s stability and erode our partnership with our European allies.”

If America turns its back on Bosnia, the president said, its own leadership will be questioned in other areas.

“Our mission will be clear, limited and achievable,” he said. “The people of Bosnia, our NATO allies, and people around the world are looking to America for leadership. So let us lead.”

Clinton said he strongly disagrees with widespread public sentiment that the U.S. should back away from world leadership. American leadership is needed more than ever, he said, “because problems that start beyond our borders can quickly become problems within them.”

The president said, in effect, that America has no other choice than to intervene, considering that the parties have decided to make peace. “Nowhere today is the need for American leadership more stark, or more immediate, than in Bosnia.”

Some Democrats, led by Sens. Paul Simon of Illinois and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, backed the president.

“If we walk away, the NATO allies will not go into Bosnia,” Lieberman said. “If we don’t do it, American leadership is drastically undercut.”

But Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, a GOP presidential candidate, was unequivocal in his opposition.

“The president made no credible case for sending American soldiers to stand between the warring sides in Bosnia,” Gramm said.

Before departing on a four-nation European tour on Tuesday, Clinton will meet with a bipartisan congressional delegation at the White House to discuss the U.S. role in Bosnia.

The president hopes to get a non-binding resolution of support from Congress–a legislative half-step that essentially places responsibilty for events in Bosnia squarely on Clinton’s shoulders.

Both houses of Congress are expected to begin hearings on the U.S. military role, with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee scheduled to convene Tuesday.

“We think Congress will wind up supporting the president,” Secretary of State Warren Christopher said Monday.

Presidential perogatives are of particular interest to Dole, who is seeking his party’s White House nomination.

In the past, Dole vigorously defended the rights and obligations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush to enforce U.S. foreign-policy interests, from the bombing of Libya to the use of American force in Grenada, Panama and Somalia.

Now, he finds himself poised between a cautious Senate and a volatile House, where a host of conservative young lawmakers are adamant about resisting any U.S. involvement, regardless of Clinton’s arguments.

“I hope the president will have my support,” said Dole, recalling that no member of the congressional Democratic leadership voted to give Bush the authority to use U.S. force in the Persian Gulf four years ago.

In January 1991, after emotional debate, the House and Senate did vote to authorize American military force to enforce a United Nations deadline for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.

At the time of the vote, however, more than 400,000 American troops already were in place in the gulf region.