Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, August 18, 1993 TAG: 9312100001
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DIMITRI SIMES
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
At least Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole is being consistent when he callsa for an American military role in Bosnia. Dole has a record of supporting the use of force to achieve U.S. objectives. But when the Clinton national-security team (many of whom have opposed just about every American military engagement in the last quarter of a century, from Vietnam to the Persian Gulf) does so, some troubling questions about its logic are in order.
Liberal Democrats traditionally have had a predisposition for causes that appeal to the heart more than the mind. But when it becomes the driving force for foreign-policy conduct, the do-gooder impulse is a sin. Those who arrogantly believe that they sufficiently understand developments thousands of miles away, in unfamiliar circumstances and alien cultures, can damage U.S. interests and lead to the loss of innocent lives - including those of the very people they would like to help.
During the Cold War, the presence of another superpower powerfully constrained what the United States could do without the risk of an apocalyptic confrontation. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the impression has been gaining momentum in this country that Washington will now be able to promote global morality on the cheap. This encourages yesterday's peaceniks to turn into today's hawks.
Unfortunately, the impression is false. The world remains a dangerous place, and those who would bravely jump into its troubled waters should be prepared to spill a lot of blood - their own and others'. Without such commitment, grave consequences can result when the bluff is called.
The administration, with its enthusiasm for global peacekeeping, has a remarkably parochial perspective on what it means to send military forces into bitterly divided foreign lands. Americans may think that they are politically neutral philanthropists entitled to be welcomed with open arms by all people of good will. However, philanthropists who are armed to the teeth and
tell locals what to do - establishing restrictions on combat, as in Bosnia, or attempting to undermine the power of warlords, as in Somalia - are bound to be met with resentment from many, and firepower from some, once their intentions become clear.
If and when the fire is returned, as has been done in Mogadishu, with interest, the entire image of the United States' well-intended objectivity goes down the drain. From that moment on, this nation, together with other members of multilateral forces, is perceived as either a party to the conflict or a hostile alien force that all good patriots are expected to oppose.
The fiasco in Lebanon in 1983-84 is instructive. American troops arrived in Beirut as part of a multinational force on a ``purely peacekeeping'' mission - according to then-President Reagan. But the peace they were supposed to maintain had been imposed on the Lebanese government by victorious Israeli invaders. It was opposed by Syria and its radical Lebanese allies.
No wonder American Marines soon came under fire, and U.S. combat aircraft and battleships bombarded enemy positions in return. The suicide bombing attack on the Marine barracks followed and the U.S. military was ordered to pull out, after losing 264 men and a great deal of American prestige in the region.
The tragedy did not stop there. The U.S. peace mission in Lebanon turned into an intervention, triggered a barrage of terrorist attacks on U.S. civilian jetliners and led, eventually, to innocent Americans' being taken hostage. The arms-for-hostages deal followed, disgracing American foreign policy and damaging the credibility of the Reagan administration.
The Clinton administration seems unable to learn from history. Throwing U.S. weight around the globe is not cost-free. It is true that Somali tribesmen and Serbian militiamen in Bosnia are no match for the American fighting machine. But provoking them unnecessarily means generating animosity and despair, and eventually risking American lives.
Neither the administration nor the public at large has the stomach for spending a lot of money or losing American lives to perform international police functions. However, instead of confronting squarely the limits of the American will to act in situations that do not involve important U.S. security and economic interests, Clinton prefers to keep the American superpower half- pregnant.
It is fashionable to argue that the administration has no choice but to do something in response to the strong sense of disgust that Americans have as they helplessly watch famine in Somalia and slaughter in Bosnia. To a large extent, media coverage does shape any administration's options, but it does not do so entirely.
People die of starvation in Sudan in enormous numbers. Civil war in Afghanistan is no less bloody than it is in Bosnia. And more attacks on UN peacekeepers take place in Cambodia than in Bosnia. Yet Americans do not hear much about these tragedies - and that is not a result of CNN's playing God and deciding which outrages to cover and which to ignore. For if candidate Clinton had not made Bosnia a campaign issue, and if President Clinton had not treated Bosnia as if it were a principal challenge to American national security, the media would have lost interest quite quickly.
In this climate of confusion and public agonizing, the events in Bosnia and Somalia have somehow grown into tests of U.S. power and righteousness. Bill Clinton has allowed this dangerous obsession to happen on his watch and has even contributed to it.
Some commander in chief!
\ Dimitri Simes chairman of the Center for Russian and Eurasian Programs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a special correspondent for Newsday, where this first appeared.
\ LA Times-Washington Post News Service
by CNB