Republicans Balk at Sending U.S. Troops to Bosnia

Congressional Republicans on Friday rebuffed President Clinton’s efforts to win their backing for the commitment of U.S. peacekeeping troops in Bosnia, further raising the chances that restive lawmakers eventually will curtail--or even block--the deployment.

In their first face-to-face meeting on Bosnia in months, Republicans made clear their skepticism about Clinton’s arguments that the United States’ advance commitment is needed to push forward the still-fragile plans for a peace settlement.

“I don’t think [White House officials] have made a case yet,” said Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), asserting that he remains opposed to sending a contingent that could include as many as 25,000 U.S. soldiers. “I don’t know how many . . . how long . . . or how much.”

In another sign of the rising urgency of the issue, the Senate on Friday evening passed by a 94-2 vote a non-binding “sense of the Senate” resolution that the President seek congressional approval before deploying troops in Bosnia.

Meanwhile, the Senate Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Appropriations committees are all laying plans for hearings into the possible deployment, and some House members predicted hearings in their chamber as well.

Congressional complaints about the possible troop commitment have been rising sharply since the warring parties in Bosnia earlier this month signed a U.S.-negotiated pact that laid the foundation for a broad peace agreement. Despite a series of encouraging signs from Bosnia, many in Congress worry that the peace will not prove durable. They do not want to back a venture that could lead to American bloodshed at a time of public unwillingness to tolerate any military casualties.

The complaints are compelling Clinton to try to buy time and fend off a flat refusal from Congress, while his negotiators attempt to fashion a peace agreement that envisions the presence of U.S. peacekeeping troops.

U.S. officials, while still debating the size of the needed force, argued that without U.S. leadership the 4-year-old Balkan conflict stands little realistic chance of being brought to a close.

But congressional leaders’ reaction Friday to the hourlong meeting was another ominous sign for Clinton that opposition to U.S. troop involvement may be coalescing, even though it is unclear what the peace agreement will look like.

*

A senior Republican aide said the Administration “asks with a wink and a nod, ‘Please support us, but give us time to get back to you. . . .’ But they’re not going to get that” from Congress.

And while the GOP leadership is signaling its reluctance to go along quietly with the Administration’s plans, there have been consistent signs that many junior Republican members, particularly on the House side, are eager to take more immediate action.

Earlier this month, Rep. Mark W. Neumann, a Wisconsin freshman, unsuccessfully proposed an amendment to block expenditure of funds for such an undertaking.

Congress’ most direct route to halting the operation would be a vote to prohibit the spending of the $1 billion or so that it would take to fund the peacekeeping effort.

Some lawmakers believe that Congress might try to stop the deployment by voting for a resolution that would authorize the operation, but with strict conditions; however, the President could ignore such a vote on grounds that it interferes with his war-making powers.

Despite Republican complaints that they have not been adequately consulted on the issue, President Clinton did not on Friday even begin to discuss most details of the possible deployment, including its size or cost.

Though Administration aides have been debating the optimal size of a peacekeeping force, Clinton asserted that it is not possible to talk meaningfully about the issue until it is clear what kind of territory U.S. troops would be asked to oversee. “We have to see whether there’s a peace agreement and what the map looks like and what the conditions are and what we’re asked to do,” Clinton said.

Lawmakers and Administration aides also jousted over how much say Congress will have in any deployment of troops.

White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said that Clinton may seek Congress’ support for dispatching a contingent of troops, but he pointedly avoided saying that Clinton would seek a vote, such as President George Bush sought before the Persian Gulf War.

But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) predicted: “I think we are going to get an authorization vote.” Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), ranking minority member of the House International Affairs Committee, also said this week that he believes Congress deserves such a vote.

*

The Senate resolution, which echoed a similar vote two years ago, was proposed by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) as a means of reminding Clinton of the Senate’s views while it is out of session next week.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said the vote is significant given that over recent decades “the constitutional authority for Congress to declare war has been undermined.” But Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) said he was voting for it only because it would alert Clinton to Congress’ concerns without tying his hands.

In Brussels, North Atlantic Treaty Organization ambassadors Friday decided that any alliance-led peacekeeping force deployed in Bosnia-Herzegovina would consist of heavily armed combat troops prepared to enforce swiftly any diplomatic settlement that might come from current negotiations.

“The peace there will be fragile,” commented a NATO official who declined to be identified. “The NATO force must be equipped to succeed.”

Some within the alliance had advocated sending a lightly armed force to Bosnia equipped much as United Nations peacekeepers have been, arguing that the warring parties in the region are exhausted and are no longer interested in fighting. The decision for a combat-ready force would make the deployment more complex and add to the mission’s cost, but it is viewed as important to ensure adequate enforcement, the official said.

Alliance officials said the exact size of the force was not discussed Friday and would be determined in the course of more detailed military planning next week. However, these same officials indicated that planners are looking at a force that probably would include between 50,000 and 60,000 troops.

As many as 25,000 could come from the United States, though White House political advisers have said they hope for a smaller number.

A draft military plan should be completed by mid-October, officials said, with some adjustments and eventual deployment coming after a diplomatic settlement.

The ambassadors also agreed that humanitarian and other non-military tasks associated with peace implementation would be delegated to other organizations.

“We’re not in this to become UNPROFOR,” an alliance official said, referring to the star-crossed U.N. peacekeeping force, whose main role was to deliver humanitarian aid to civilians trapped by the conflict. “We want to avoid mission creep.”

In Washington, the administrator of the Agency for International Development predicted that U.S. pledges of aid to rebuild Bosnia would be an incentive for the warring parties to end both the conflict and the need for peacekeepers.

“We are the peacekeeping strategy,” said J. Brian Atwood, the administrator.

He said he hopes that the United States will be able to contribute between $250 million and $500 million over the next five years for infrastructure projects and other steps to repair the destruction from four years of war.

Meanwhile, by a voice vote, the Senate confirmed the nomination of Gen. John M. Shalikashvili for a second two-year term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military’s highest ranking office.

Times staff writers Tyler Marshall in Brussels and Elizabeth Shogren and Norman Kempster in Washington contributed to this report.