COLUMN RIGHT / TOM BETHELL : In Somalia, the U.S. Leaps Into the Unknown : Bush’s open-ended dispatch of troops without debate may cost Clinton his domestic agenda.

It seems extraordinary that a mission as large, complex and unprecedented as the U.S. intervention in Somalia should have been launched with so little debate or discussion. Characteristically, President Bush told the nation about his plans only after the details had already been worked out. Once again the United Nations has shown itself to be a remarkably pliable institution--willing to do America’s bidding so long as the appearance of U.N. control is maintained.

Among Bush’s aides, it has been reported, the belief is that this military action could give the President a way to leave office in glory. There is much talk of America finally acting in a “noble cause,” of an intervention that is for once “high-minded.” People who talk this way--and they tend to be liberals--have apparently forgotten that the same language was used a generation ago, with respect to Vietnam.

President-elect Clinton has also declared his support for what he called a “clearly defined humanitarian mission.” Perhaps he felt that he had little choice. But if problems lie ahead, they will hurt him more than Bush. It is now recognized that getting into Somalia is likely to prove easier than getting out.

Images of tearful dockside farewells may well become the hallmark of the Bush Administration. The mission to Somalia has of course been driven by images--harrowing photographs of starving children in a barren and hostile landscape. It is impossible not to be moved by them. Their impact is such that it is equally difficult to think of reasons why we should not undertake a rescue. House Speaker Thomas S. Foley noted that Bush acted “in circumstances where he had very little choice, without grave humanitarian consequences resulting.”

But surely the United States should be particularly wary of committing itself under such emotional circumstances. Unintended consequences are certain to ensue when the military is used in unprecedented ways. Because no organized opposition is anticipated, we are told, there is no reason not to proceed. The idea, a strange one, is that armies can safely be deployed when they are in no danger of encountering rival armies.

The mission is not well defined, contrary to what Clinton said. For how many weeks will American soldiers be expected to stand guard over Somali food lines? Jeep-driving teen-age gunmen will no doubt have disappeared into the scrub by the time the GIs arrive. Weapons will no doubt be buried. Food convoys will get through, and the problem will seem solved--until pressure mounts to bring our troops home. Maybe by then the U.N. will be able to take over, we are told. Perhaps we should now be asking what took them so long.

Liberals have been notably enthusiastic, particularly about the prospect that the U.S. military may now be transformed from a fighting force protecting the national interest to an armored care agency, performing missions of mercy wherever desired. They should be more circumspect. One or two conservatives of my acquaintance, suspected in the past of “isolationist” sentiment, have even indicated a muted, Machiavellian enthusiasm for this latest show of federal activism. Central governments have shown signs of collapsing in various parts of the world, and some small-government enthusiasts would like nothing more than to see the federal government follow suit here. It is already greatly overextended. Some hope that with one more foreign intervention, one more display of compassionate activism, the Feds might finally tumble into terminal bankruptcy and disarray.

Some liberals recognize the danger of an overextended federal commitment. Alice Rivlin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a possible member of the Clinton Administration’s economic team, has even suggested that the federal government should relinquish its interest in education, restoring it to the states. For the most part, however, liberals continue to demonstrate what the Hoover Institution’s Thomas Sowell has called an “unconstrained vision” of government.

Clinton was derided during the campaign for his lack of foreign-policy experience, but like Ronald Reagan he recognized that domestic policy holds the key to presidential success. When he is sworn in next month, not only will he be commander in chief, but he will already find himself saddled with an overseas commitment, which at that point might not look quite as straightforward as it does now.

Nothing could be more distracting to Clinton’s domestic agenda. If more such engagements are to be added to his plate, this agenda will surely be postponed. A country that is dispensing free health care abroad is unlikely to be able to afford it at home.