Aspin States His Case for Use of Force in Bosnia

Defense Secretary-designate Les Aspin told senators Thursday that “there’s more of a national interest at stake in Bosnia than there is in Somalia” and reinforced a growing belief among some that the incoming Administration may have a greater willingness to use force in the conflict in the Balkans.

“If the world does nothing about what’s going on in Bosnia, what kind of a signal does that send to other places in the former Soviet Union and other places where similar things might erupt,” Aspin asked on the opening day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Aspin also pointedly rejected concerns that U.S. air strikes against Serbian positions would pose substantial risks for the United States.

Aspin’s comments on the potential use of force in the former Yugoslavia sparked the most controversy in an otherwise cordial session that is expected to lead to Aspin’s early confirmation by the panel.

It also signaled Aspin’s--and some believe President-elect Bill Clinton’s--greater willingness to use American force for limited purposes in places like Bosnia-Herzegovina. Under questioning, Aspin added that he supports the Bush Administration’s ultimatum demanding that Iraq remove anti-aircraft missiles from an air-exclusion zone in the south portion of that country.

Aspin said that with the end of the Cold War, the United States can conduct limited military operations and then decide to “back off” without fear of signaling weakness to a superpower adversary. “Maybe you use force not to achieve something but to punish people for doing certain things,” Aspin said in response to a question about the risks of U.S. air strikes against Serbian positions.

Aspin insisted that he does not support the intervention of U.S. ground troops in the former Yugoslavia, adding that it would be his “preference” for European countries, which have more immediate interests in the Yugoslavian conflict, to send such troops.

But he suggested that the United States could use its high-technology arsenal to make a point in that conflict. In discussing the possibility that U.S. aircraft could be dispatched to bomb Serbian positions, Aspin acknowledged concerns that American pilots could be downed and held captive.

“Maybe that means you don’t use manned aircraft in certain circumstances,” said Aspin, who said that he would be “one of several sources of advice” on Clinton’s decision on the use of force. “Maybe you use cruise missiles,” he added.

The use of the American military was just one of the controversial issues that Aspin addressed in a hearing that quickly became a forum for senators’ special pleas.

Among them were both appeals to Aspin to find new savings in the defense budget and appeals to forestall deeper cuts than those proposed by President Bush. Aspin, acknowledging that he will continue to feel pressure from both sides, offered his own assessment of the challenge he will face from fractious lawmakers.

“The current situation in Congress right now is not a split between hawks and doves, between liberals and conservatives, between Democrats and Republicans,” said Aspin. “It’s between those people that have military bases and facilities and things in their districts and those that don’t.”

Those without military bases or facilities in their districts, Aspin said, are very anxious to cut the defense budget and apply the savings to programs closer to home.

“If you don’t have any impact at home on that, you’re likely to want to do it very quickly and get a big chunk of money and spend it somewhere else. (But) . . . with people who have military bases, they’re saying: ‘Whoa, time out, not so fast, you’re talking about jobs here.’ ”

Aspin reiterated Clinton’s promise to reduce defense budgets over the next five years by $60 billion. But he cautioned that problems with the budget he will inherit from Defense Secretary Dick Cheney may make the task of finding such savings more challenging than expected.

The Bush Administration’s spending estimates, for example, appear to include overly optimistic assessments of financial savings from Pentagon management reforms, Aspin said. He added that the Bush Pentagon plan also maintains commitments to programs whose costs will grow beyond the budget limits Bush set.

As a result, Aspin said, he may need to make a deeper reduction in defense programs than earlier thought.

“You may be talking about a $100-billion cut” from defense programs “just to meet the Bush numbers,” Aspin said.