Sending Troops to Bosnia

* As a citizen, I have been thinking about Bosnia and considering my own feelings about sending U.S. troops. I have noticed the criticism coming from some Republicans who would resist President Clinton no matter what the issue. I have noticed the media’s drumbeat of doubt to build the drama and keep us tuned in. I have certainly noticed the public’s genuine hesitation, including my own.

Amid all this, President Clinton has asked Americans to make the unusual choice to intervene not to make war, but to make peace (Nov. 28). The goal of peace is lost in the media-political shuffle, so the price of peace, in terms of the budget or bodies, seems too much to spend.

There may be casualties, yes. But having come this far, having achieved a signed commitment by the parties to make a try, the cost of our not trying is too high. This is not about Clinton’s or America’s credibility. This is about the credibility of the world--and yes, America is part of that world.

JANE WARDLOW PRETTYMAN

Santa Barbara

* I protest the direct involvement of our military forces in Bosnia. We never learn from the past painful interventions that do not directly concern the national security interests of the U.S.

Haiti was an appropriate commitment, since an overwhelming intrusion of Haitian boat people was invading our shores. This war is not our problem. The people of Europe have the financial, military and diplomatic resources to protect their national interest, which is right on their doorstep.

JACK GILMAN

West Hollywood

* The Times’ editorial board has joined the bandwagon as prosecutor and judge in the effort to convict Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic. Your Nov. 28 editorial states, “Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader and convicted war criminal . . .” It may be true that he has been indicted, but I beg to differ with your conclusion that he is already convicted.

The press has joined with the political elite within the U.S. to pick our side (Croatian) in the Yugoslav civil war, and identified our protectorate (Bosnian Muslims). But the crimes are not just those of the Serbian people. Scant attention has been paid to the crimes of Croatia’s President Franjo Tudjman in the ethnic cleansing of the Krajina, or Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic’s role in the beheadings of Serbs by his military forces.

JAMES G. SHAW

Fullerton

* The conservative members of Congress opposing a role for U.S. peace-implementing troops in Bosnia need to put the potential for losses in perspective.

The comparative reality is that, in our “peaceful” nation, there are in excess of 20,000 homicides per year and more than 40,000 killed per year in automobile accidents, none for any redeeming purpose.

While the potential for a loss of some U.S. troops in Bosnia must be contemplated, such can be held to a minimum by wise planning and execution. The losses in Bosnia, regrettable as they might be, can be justified by the nobility of the joint purpose with NATO to end this intransigent Balkan conflagration that has taken such a horrendous toll on the Serbs, Croats and Muslims.

GEORGE V. HALL

Manhattan Beach

* The United States, the largest debtor nation in the world, has absolutely no national interest in Bosnia or in the loss of American men and women there, along with the wasting of billions of dollars we need to lower the national debt so our grandchildren will not be saddled with an 87% income tax. The United States suffered 54,000 dead in Korea, for what? The United States suffered 58,000 dead in Vietnam, for what?

The U.S. has no responsibilities in Bosnia, but it has responsibilities in Los Angeles.

DONALD L. MELLMAN

Studio City