We Should Say Now When We’re Leaving : Bosnia: U.S. leadership--but not as an occupation force--is crucial to restore peace.

Only rarely are watershed events in a nation’s history so clearly defined as is the current debate on our involvement in the Bosnian peacekeeping mission. The outcome of the national debate will shape America’s international role and stature for many years.

A major premise of this debate rightly focuses on the risks to our troops. I would submit, however, that there are major risks if we do not participate. Leadership is about shaping outcomes and balancing risks.

American leadership has brought the warring sides to the negotiating table, American leadership has helped shape a peace settlement that all sides have pledged to uphold and American leadership is poised to play a major role in a multinational force to maintain that peace. This is an outcome that serves our national interest on both humanitarian and geopolitical grounds. But it is an outcome that is unattainable without American leadership, backed by American forces.

In short, if we carry out this commitment, there is a good probability of peace in Bosnia and enhanced stability in Europe. Also, we will maintain our stature as a true world leader, seen as capable of decisive action and global influence. If we fail to lead, we will be seen as an inept giant tied down by Lilliputian bonds of self-absorbed shortsightedness.

The Bosnia peace mission will be the NATO alliance’s first true out-of-area involvement. With more than 20 nations participating, this involvement will be shared by other, non-NATO nations in the first-ever joint security venture of its kind, a remarkable achievement and a useful precedent for future peacekeeping missions. If anyone had told me during the Cold War that I would live to see the day when Russian troops would be serving under the operational and tactical control of American generals, I would have suggested counseling!

The greater purpose served by our involvement should not obscure the risks to our soldiers on the ground, principally from land mines and attacks from rogue elements. But these risks must be kept in perspective. Our troops are superbly trained and equipped; they have top-notch leadership, good intelligence and communications, and they will have the strongest rules of engagement I have seen. I foresee a limited physical risk. Over time, a larger danger may be posed by boredom and complacency. It will be up to the leaders to ensure that our soldiers do not slip into that pitfall.

Stating in advance the length of our commitment is controversial, but announcing an exit time has more advantages than disadvantages. It demonstrates that the United States will not be in Bosnia as an occupational force, nor will we be involved in nonmilitary missions. It will help avoid the risk of “mission creep.” And the countdown to our exit will put great pressure on the European community and others to take the lead in elections, refugees, resettlement and reconstruction and to plan for stability after our withdrawal.

Obviously, there is no guarantee that certain elements will not try to outwait us. But if the more than 20 nations pledge that those who try to upset the peace will not gain, the chances of long-term success are enhanced.

This crisis is a defining moment for American leadership in the international arena, and we should pick up the mantle that no other can wear.