Tripod Home | New | TriTeca | Work/Money | Politics/Community | Living/Travel | Planet T | Daily Scoop

Find Your Congress Members: Who is representing your state in DC, and how can you have a say? Congressional Committees: What they do and who to contact.

Bosnia Roundup Posted December 11, 1995 Once again, we've translated a complicated political situation into plain English, so you can make up your own mind. Read the Introduction to make sure you are up to date on America's involvement in Bosnia. Then check out what's happening on the Bosnia front in the White House, the Senate, and the House. Remember to use our handy links to tell your members of Congress how you feel. INTRODUCTION: Amid mixed feelings at home and an uncertain peace overseas, the first trickle of a deployment of 20,000 American troops landed in Bosnia last week. Dispatched by President Clinton, the U.S. soldiers will compose the core of a NATO peacekeeping force charged with policing a peace agreement reached by warring parties after nearly three years of fighting in the former Yugoslavia. Their mission calls for an one-year presence. Clinton dispatched the troops over the objections of some Congressional leaders, and in the face of polls that show most Americans to be unconvinced that the cause of peace in the Balkans is worth risking American lives. And the risks are great. Bosnia is teeming with uncharted land mines. The peace agreement signed in Dayton, Ohio last month by the presidents of Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia is delicate. There is concern that Serb leaders, widely seen as aggressors in a campaign to conquer Bosnia and carry out "ethnic cleansing" against Bosnian Muslims, may not honor the agreement, or that rogue factions from any side could incite renewed violence. Yet President Clinton and his advisors have concluded that it is in America's moral and strategic interest to commit to troops to a peacekeeping force which, without American leadership, would not exist. Parallels between "ethnic cleansing" and the Holocaust, the specter of the war widening through Europe, and the importance of continued American leadership in the NATO alliance were central to the decision. "America cannot and must not be the world's policeman," Clinton said in a national address, but noted it must act when called on to "defend our fundamental values as a people and serve our most basic strategic interests." Although Clinton's power as commander in chief allows him to order the deployment without Congressional approval, his action has the political cauldron bubbling furiously in Washington. Here's a roundup of how the debate is playing out in Congress and the White House. THE WHITE HOUSE: President Clinton is taking a gamble that could have tremendous implications not only for the future of the Balkans and American foreign policy, but for Clinton's own re-election in 1996. The deployment does not have the widespread support enjoyed by George Bush's dispatch of troops to the Persian Gulf in 1990, and because of the complexity of the conflict and the somewhat unclear objectives of the mission, prompts politically deadly comparisons to America's doomed intervention in Vietnam. While these factors make for nail-biting at the White House -- and made necessary a one-year limit on the commitment -- the consequences of further inaction are also unpalatable. Clinton's appearance of weakness and vacillation was politically damaging to his image both at home and as a world leader. Should the mission be a success, he will reap huge political benefits in both arenas. Earlier this month Clinton reluctantly signed what he felt was an unnecessarily costly defense spending bill because he did not want to jeopardize funds for the mission. He recently won the support of former presidents Bush and Gerald Ford for the mission. THE SENATE: As Senate Majority Leader and Clinton's leading challenger in the 1996 election, Bob Dole's reaction on the troop deployment was anxiously awaited throughout Washington. Despite consistently opposing Clinton on both domestic and foreign issues, Dole surprised many observers by agreeing to deliver the Senate's support of the mission. Some feel that Dole's brush with death during World War II has instilled in him an unwavering support for the American military and his commander-in-chief when U.S. troops are at risk. Dole also realizes that the Constitution gives Congress little power to block the deployment. "The Congress cannot stop this troop deployment from happening," Dole said in the Senate on Dec. 2. "If we would try to cut off funds, we would harm the men and women in the military who have already begun to arrive in Bosnia." Still, Dole is pressuring Clinton to narrowly limit the scope of the mission. He and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) plan to introduce resolution this week that will express support for the troops but add conditions: detailing the permissible activities of U.S. troops; ensuring that U.S. commanders have full authority to severely retaliate against any attack; denying authorization of funds for some "nation-building" activities provided for by the peace agreement; and assuring that the Bosnian Muslims are armed and trained to defense themselves before the U.S. forces withdraw. And Dole has differed with Clinton over Bosnia policy in the past, sponsoring a bill this spring to end the arms embargo to the Bosnian Muslims. Furthermore some Senators, like Phil Gramm (R-TX), who is Dole's chief rival for the Republican presidential nomination, and Majority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS), oppose the mission outright. THE HOUSE: While Dole and his fellow Senators have chosen not to riot over Bosnia, the House, a more unruly place by nature, will not be such an easy sell for Clinton. Home to strains of isolationism, high distrust of Clinton and 73 Republican freshman always eager for a high-profile fight, the House has already voted twice to oppose any deployment not authorized by Congress. And key House figures like Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-TX), have indicated that a resolution supporting the Bosnia action may not win approval. Just days after the President announced his decision, the House National Security Committee summoned administration officials, including Defense Secretary William Perry, to the Capitol for a round of tense hearings, where Chairman Floyd D. Spence (R-S.C.) and Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), expressed doubts about the mission. The House's support is so tenuous that the Senate may pass its own resolution of support for the mission, rather than a joint resolution that would also require House support. Speaker Newt Gingrich has said he will try to accommodate Clinton's request for a vote before Dec. 14.