Clinton Urged to Take Case for Bosnia Moves to Public

Deeply divided over what to do about Bosnia, members of Congress urged President Clinton on Tuesday to take his case for military intervention in the Balkans to the public before he commits U.S. forces in any significant capacity.

“The President has to do a much better job of selling (military intervention) to the American people,” said Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), expressing what is so far the only consensus to emerge among lawmakers. Many in Congress view the prospect of military action in Bosnia with even more alarm than they did going to war in the Persian Gulf.

“This is truly an issue on which members are torn,” conceded House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.). Everyone “feels anguish and concern” over what is happening in Bosnia, but they are also “deeply troubled by the idea of direct military involvement” in what many fear could become a Vietnam-like quagmire in the Balkans, he said.

The formal congressional debate on Bosnia has yet to begin. But with the Pentagon proceeding with parallel plans to send peacekeeping forces to Bosnia--or to launch air strikes against Serbian positions if the fighting does not stop--the prospect of U.S. military intervention already has splintered lawmakers along unusual and nonpartisan lines.

“People are trying to figure out whether this is Germany, 1942, or Vietnam, 1975,” said Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.).

“It’s a tough call,” agreed Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). “Lawmakers are haunted by the specter of Neville Chamberlain or the specter of Vietnam.” (Chamberlain was the British prime minister who brought “peace in our time” by agreeing in 1938 to the Munich Pact that led to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler’s taking over Czechoslovakia.)

Even as Clinton and Secretary of State Warren Christopher struggle to forge a consensus among the European allies on intervention, Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate are divided between those demanding urgent military action to stop what they fear is another Holocaust in the making and those who recall two recent nightmares for the United States--Vietnam and Beirut.

“I am very concerned that this could end up being a repeat of the Beirut experience,” when 241 U.S. servicemen were killed in a truck bomb attack on their barracks in October, 1983, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said.

Pentagon officials said Tuesday that they are proceeding with plans to dispatch as many as 25,000 troops to Bosnia to serve as the backbone of a U.N. peacekeeping force that may have to be deployed there for several years.

But McCain said he is concerned that, without adequate firepower and broad rules of engagement allowing the peacekeepers to defend themselves, the mission is likely to be doomed from the start.

Most lawmakers said they agree that Clinton will need to seek congressional authorization under the 1973 War Powers Act if he puts U.S. forces into a combat situation in Bosnia. But with so many differing opinions, it is by no means certain--even at this late date--that such authorization would be forthcoming.

“The divisions on this are so deep that it could make the debate over the use of force in the Persian Gulf look like a cakewalk,” said a senior aide on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Whether Clinton can obtain the authorization, he added, depends “first on what he asks for and how well he asks for it.”

The War Powers Act requires a President to report to Congress when he puts U.S. troops into hostile situations and imposes a 60-day time limit on the commitment of forces without congressional authorization. Presidents generally have complied, while arguing that it is not binding.

While most lawmakers said they think that Clinton should ask for congressional approval before sending U.S. forces to Bosnia, their confusion over intervention was underscored by conflicting opinions over what kind of authorization he should seek.

Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) said that he does not think Clinton would need congressional approval to send ground troops to Bosnia as part of an international peacekeeping force but that he would require authorization for air strikes.

Sen. John B. Breaux (D-La.) said he would have “no problem” with Clinton going ahead and ordering air strikes but would insist that he seek congressional approval before sending ground troops as part of a peacekeeping force likely to be subject to hostile fire.

A random sampling of opinion on Capitol Hill on Tuesday illustrated how confusing the divisions are.

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said, for instance, that he does not now favor air strikes but does support lifting an arms embargo to help Bosnia’s Muslims.

But Simon, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he favors air strikes over lifting the embargo, which “will only escalate the conflict and get us into the question of who arms the Muslims. . . . It could be Iran as well as us.”

Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) said that he opposes both options and predicted that Clinton would face opposition in the Senate for either course of action.

At the moment, the only consensus spanning these divisions is that Clinton needs to sell a skeptical public on the need for military intervention before the first casualties occur.

“I think Congress and the American people will be supportive of the President . . . but he’s got to educate them first. . . . This is not a war, but a genocidal slaughter,” said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), an advocate of air strikes.

“There is not a strong sentiment for American military intervention,” said Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.).