Size of Bosnia Force Divides Clinton Team

A desire to keep Congress from blocking the deployment of U.S. peacekeepers in Bosnia has embroiled the Clinton Administration in an internal dispute over how large a force the United States should send.

Some Administration officials are arguing for a deployment of about 8,000 American troops, a number that they contend would give the United States a lower profile and reduce congressional resistance to the mission, leaving President Clinton less politically vulnerable.

“There’s no question that the President wants very much to have the full support of Congress if U.S. troops are deployed,” a key Administration official said. “To have Congress divided could prove to be destructive.”

At the same time, the Pentagon has been pushing to send a contingent of 25,000 U.S. troops, contending that the larger number would enable the Americans to protect themselves without having to rely on troops from other countries.

Clinton has pledged that if current negotiations produce a genuine peace accord in the war-plagued Balkans, the United States will provide up to half of the expected 50,000 ground troops in a NATO-led peace-enforcement operation, along with logistic support for all NATO forces.

At the White House on Monday, Willy Claes, secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, emerged from talks with Clinton saying that a “robust” peacekeeping operation would be needed to enforce any new accord--including a sizable contingent of U.S. troops.

While the ultimate size and composition would depend largely on the accord’s details, some strategists say the United States could easily get away with fewer than the maximum number of troops it pledged because the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina is not as dangerous as it was a few months ago.

But Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all but insisted on the higher number in congressional testimony last month. The Administration does not want American troops to “get pushed around like [the U.N. force] has been,” he told lawmakers. U.N. peacekeepers have been subjected to attacks, harassment, even kidnapings by the combatants in the Bosnian war.

Insiders said the Pentagon is also pressing for what essentially would be U.S. control of the entire peace operation, which ostensibly would be under NATO command. Such control is essential if the Administration hopes to avert opposition in Congress.

Washington also reportedly hopes to strengthen the Bosnian government’s military position to help ensure that Serbian nationalist forces will not suddenly renege on any new agreement.

Although the White House is determined to avoid submitting the troop-deployment proposal to a formal vote on Capitol Hill, it hopes to win some sort of public endorsement from the lawmakers, possibly in the form of a “sense of Congress” resolution.

No peace accord seems in sight just yet, but U.S. and allied strategists have been fashioning contingency plans at a frenetic pace. Recently NATO formally called on all member governments to announce how many units they would contribute.

After his meeting with Clinton, Claes said the allies would be pleased to have Russia contribute a substantial contingent, though obviously not strictly under NATO command. That suggestion was previously made by U.S. Defense Secretary William J. Perry.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops in Europe have begun rehearsing for a deployment to Bosnia, conducting exercises in Germany and Italy. The U.S. force is expected to be built around an expanded division, with heavy armor and plenty of close air support.