3 Key Senators Back U.S. Troop Presence in Kosovo

Support for the deployment of U.S. ground troops in a possible multinational peacekeeping force in Kosovo gained momentum Tuesday as key senators endorsed an American role.

Republican Sens. Charles Hagel of Nebraska and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana joined Democrat Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut in signaling support for the deployment of as many as 5,000 U.S. troops to participate in a much larger NATO-led peacekeeping contingent in the separatist Yugoslav region.

They would be sent to Kosovo to enforce any interim agreement reached between warring Serbs and ethnic Albanians. Kosovo, which is 90% ethnic Albanian, is a province of Serbia, the larger of Yugoslavia’s two republics. Talks between the two sides are scheduled to begin this weekend in France.

But the senators specifically ruled out any combat role that might require U.S. troops to impose peace if the negotiations fail.

“The United States should be part of any NATO ground force action--if that action is peacekeeping, not peacemaking,” Hagel said.

While the three lawmakers said the main purpose of their Capitol Hill news conference was to generate debate on the issue, the public display of bipartisan backing was seen as essential to any U.S. action in the current impeachment climate.

Although military planners in Washington and at North Atlantic Treaty Organization headquarters in Brussels have been working quietly for weeks on the contours of a possible Kosovo peace force, the Clinton administration has carefully avoided pushing openly for a U.S. ground presence.

On Tuesday, State Department spokesman James P. Rubin repeated the administration’s position that it is consulting with Congress on the role U.S. forces might play. White House spokesman P. J. Crowley was also noncommittal.

“There are a lot of ideas out there on what might be required, but we’ve made no decisions yet,” he said.

The administration’s caution reflects the volatile political atmosphere in the capital and the sensitivity attached to sending U.S. forces to a highly unstable part of the world.

Two other Senate Republicans, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Gordon Smith of Oregon, have sent a letter to Clinton opposing a U.S. troop deployment except under strict conditions, including a stipulation that any military personnel serve directly under an American commander.

NATO’s provisional plans for Kosovo call for a predominantly European military force led by a British general, and France on Tuesday said it would provide a sizable contingent. But the operation would fall under the jurisdiction of the southernmost of the alliance’s three regional commands, whose chief officer is an American. In addition, the supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe is U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark.

Roughly 6,900 U.S. troops remain as part of a peace force sent three years ago to Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is also in the Balkans. In contrast to the current plans for Kosovo, Americans made up the largest contingent of the 60,000 troops initially deployed in Bosnia.

Appearing before a Senate committee Tuesday, CIA Director George J. Tenet sketched a scenario for Kosovo that would end in disaster without an interim accord between Serbian authorities and leaders of the ethnic Albanians.

“We believe that we are on the verge of a dramatic deterioration of the Kosovo crisis as the limitations of winter weather pass,” Tenet told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “The bottom line is that if the warring parties are not in some way separated and controlled, we all should expect increased conflict in the coming spring and summer months.”

Although they have stopped short of openly advocating deployment of U.S. ground forces to the region, administration officials have stressed that America has an important stake in ensuring a peaceful settlement of the Kosovo crisis. They have cited a potential humanitarian catastrophe and the danger of conflict spreading to the surrounding region, possibly infecting NATO allies Turkey and Greece.

Lieberman noted that the 20th century has demonstrated more than once that “if you let small conflicts in Europe go unattended, they threaten to grow into larger wars that will ultimately drain the European countries--and we as their allies--of an enormous amount of human lifeblood and treasure.”

Times staff writer Paul Richter contributed to this report.