Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, February 13, 1993 TAG: 9302170325
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DONALD E. NUECHTERLEIN
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
WORLD'S COP MUST BEWARE QUAGMIRE
PRESIDENT Clinton's new foreign-policy team is having to define America's interests in three key danger spots, on three continents, and formulate a strategy to deal with them.The countries and issues are:
Bosnia - whether the United States should use its own forces if negotiation fails to bring a halt to the civil war.
Somalia - whether Clinton should pull out most of the 25,000 U.S. forces there and turn over responsibility for policing that country to the United Nations. Some American troops have already returned home.
Iraq - whether the new president should continue the Bush policy of refusing to deal with Iraq while Saddam Hussein remains in charge.
The issues concerning these countries, all of them potential crises, have serious political implications beyond their borders.
In Bosnia, the civil war among Serbs, Muslims and Croats could spread to other parts of the Balkans and trigger wars with Albania, Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria.
In Somalia, the U.S.-led military effort to get food to starving villagers has been accomplished. But U.N. Secretary General Boutros Ghali is reluctant to accept responsibility for policing that country, and wants U.S. troops to stay. If they do, how many other countries in Africa will ask for American forces to stop civil wars?
Regarding Iraq, Clinton told The New York Times before his inauguration that he might be willing to improve relations with Saddam's government if it changed its behavior. He later denied that he intended to alter U.S. policy on Iraq. But what would be the implications for security in the Middle East if he reverses George Bush's refusal to deal with Iraq until Saddam is gone?
What is America's stake in the Balkans, in the Persian Gulf, and in east Africa now that the Cold War has ended and there is no military threat to the United States?
If we see no current threat to U.S. territory, there are three other national interests that might conceivably justify using our military power abroad: economic threats, threats to the world order and extreme cases of humanitarian need.
Somalia qualifies as an "extreme humanitarian" case. But sending American troops there should not mandate that they remain permanently as "peacekeepers." Furthermore, U.S. intervention in Somalia should not be a precedent for similar involvements in Liberia, Angola, South Africa and other unstable countries in Africa.
Iraq qualifies as a threat to U.S. economic interests because its invasion of Kuwait in 1990 threatened Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf oil supplies to the West.
Today, the threat to America's economic interest in the Persian Gulf is only slightly less than it was two years ago. In my view, the Persian Gulf area will never be safe as long as Saddam remains dictator of Iraq. Current sanctions should remain until he is removed by the Iraqis.
The most vexing international question is U.S. involvement in Bosnia, and perhaps other parts of the former Yugoslavia. The main arguments for intervention are:
Unless stopped now, civil war in Bosnia could expand into another European war.
Muslim countries will soon send aid to their beleaguered religious brethren in Bosnia unless shelling of their cities and Serb atrocities are stopped. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, all allies of the United States, are under growing domestic pressure to help the Bosnian Muslims.
The United States has no less a humanitarian responsibility to stop the killing in Bosnia than it has in Somalia.
The arguments against U.S. intervention in Bosnia seem compelling:
U.S. air power will not deter Serbia from pursuing expansionist policies. As in Vietnam, and in Iraq two years ago, ground forces would be required to stop the fighting and to provide protection for many years to Bosnia and Croatia.
Serbia, no matter how brutal its policies, is not a similar threat to the peace of Europe as Hitler's Germany was in the 1930s. Even if all Serbs were united under Belgrade's rule, this greater Serbia can be contained by NATO and the United Nations acting in concert.
There are limits to what the United States should do for humanitarian reasons, in Africa or the Balkans. The cost of sending 25,000 American troops to Somalia for a brief period to ensure food deliveries is small compared to what it would cost to deploy perhaps 75,000 troops to Bosnia for an indefinite period to enforce peace. These troops could lift the siege of Sarajevo and get food to other cities, but they would not be capable of invading Serbia and forcing its government to change its policies. Such a task would be similar to Desert Storm, and require larger forces.
The reality of the current Bosnian situation, unlike that in Somalia or Iraq, is that if the United States commits itself militarily, it will not be able to withdraw in the foreseeable future.
That possibility creates the serious potential for quagmire. The Clinton administration must avoid that potential just as John Kennedy should have avoided it in Vietnam 30 years ago.
The Vietnam War Memorial on the Mall in Washington should be a reminder to all Americans of the cost of such folly.