[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           CONFLICT IN BOSNIA

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, once again, the President has issued a 
``we're going to get tough in Bosnia'' statement. By my count, this is 
now the ninth time that the President has said we are going to get 
tough in Bosnia, and it is the ninth time that that statement and those 
efforts have been virtually ignored by the Serbs, ignored by the world 
community, and not been backed up by an effective policy that 
translates into action.
  We are right to be morally outraged about what is happening in 
Yugoslavia, as we are right to be morally outraged about what is 
happening in many, many parts of the world. The slaughters taking place 
in Gorazde and in parts of former Yugoslavia are no different than 
slaughters taking place in many other parts of this world. But the 
statement that we are now going to get tough has not and, I doubt this 
time will, translate into a policy that can effectively resolve the 
conflict.
  The question we need to ask is why? And the answer to that forces us 
to face up to some very fundamental facts and some fundamental truths 
that have not been stated.
  The President has not clearly defined reasons why the United States 
should be involved in this conflict in the Balkans and, as such, the 
American people legitimately question our purpose and our resolve in 
that conflict.
  The truth is that air power, economic sanctions, arms embargoes, U.N. 
resolutions, diplomatic efforts, or Presidential press conferences have 
not and will not deter the Serbs. U.N. peacekeepers are merely 
observers of aggression and conflict and war that goes on between the 
fighting parties and has now gone on for more than 2 years. They serve 
little effective purpose.
  U.S. air strikes can only achieve extremely limited objectives. If we 
were not able to accomplish a successful resolution to the conflict of 
Desert Storm when we owned the air, when we had defined fixed targets, 
when we flew 30,000 sorties day and night for 40 days, without ground 
intervention, we certainly will not resolve the conflict in Bosnia with 
air strikes alone. The terrain in Bosnia is extraordinarily difficult, 
targets are completely mobile, and we do not have clear control or air 
superiority because of the antiaircraft and defensive weapons possessed 
by the Serbians. The weather is marginal at best and cloud cover 
obscures targets three-fourths of the time. We have already learned in 
just a few brief attempts to utilize air power to deter Serb aggression 
the precarious nature of that operation.
  The truth is that we cannot resolve this conflict without a massive 
infusion of ground troops into the area and give our troops a clear-
cut, defined objective to defeat the aggressor and to restore some 
semblance of order from the chaos that exists in Bosnia. But the truth 
is that the United States will not commit those troops, and neither 
will any other country.
  We have to stop pretending that we can take some halfway steps and 
promise, or at least threaten, that they will resolve the conflict. We 
flatout know that they will not and we flatout understand that we will 
not commit American men and women in uniform in massive numbers, or 
perhaps in any numbers, to that conflict.
  The Serbs know this. They have mobile weapons that can easily be 
moved and do not lend themselves to be the kind of targets that are 
necessary for air power to be effective.
  My colleagues should remember the conflict in the Persian Gulf. Even 
when our forces had complete superiority in the air, we could not track 
down Iraqi mobile Scuds. These are far less mobile than the artillery 
or tanks we see in Bosnia, and were located in flat desert terrain with 
clear air.
  The targets we must locate and destroy in Bosnia are located in 
mountainous regions in caves and under cover. Furthermore, cloud cover 
obscures those targets. They can easily be moved on just a moment's 
notice.
  We should stop threatening what we cannot deliver because we still 
have not defined a clear-cut case for U.S. intervention. The President 
has not defined our mission and the American people do not understand 
it.
  We have not identified our political objectives, and therefore our 
military cannot determine if and how we can achieve these through use 
of force. Without a defined objective, we have an open-ended situation 
reminiscent of past crises, such as Lebanon and Somalia. The American 
public will not support this type of operation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair would like to restate the 
previous order. The previous order was that morning business would go 
on until 10:30. Senators would be permitted to speak for 5 minutes 
each. The first 30 minutes would be under the control of the Senator 
from Wyoming or his designee. That period has expired. And the second 
30 minutes would be under the control of the Senator from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy] or his designee. There was no one in the Chamber, so the 
Senator from Colorado spoke beyond the 5 minutes allotted.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I thank you for that instruction, of 
which I was not aware. I wonder if I could ask my friend, the Senator 
from Massachusetts, for 5 minutes at this time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for an 
additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I thank you and I thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  We need to understand the reality of the conflict in what was 
formerly Yugoslavia. Conflict in this region dates back several 
centuries. It is ethnic, cultural, and religious and will not easily be 
resolved. It will certainly not be resolved by outside intervention.
  There are at least three factions present in that territory. They all 
hate each other. They all have enmities which go back for centuries. 
They all want to kill each other. It is simply a matter of who has the 
weapons and who has the military advantage. They have staying power 
that we need to understand is going to outlast any short-term 
intervention. It makes U.S. involvement potentially open-ended. No date 
certain, no timetable, no clear-cut objective. That again reminds us of 
past conflicts, and again tells us that we will not commit American 
troops to that type of situation.
  It is almost cruel to the Moslems, as difficult as that situation is, 
to hold out the hope to them of U.S. intervention. While we do not know 
for certain, it is a distinct possibility that the war and the conflict 
in Bosnia is being prolonged because the Moslems hold onto the false 
hope that the United States, the United Nations, or NATO will intervene 
in a way to effectively support their effort. We are not going to do 
that, and we need to state that and state that clearly. The President 
knows that. He must state that.
  It is difficult to do. I understand that. It is difficult to watch 
the carnage and to view the situation as it is taking place in Bosnia. 
Yet we have to be honest and truthful and say that we are not going to 
intervene in a way that will effectively deter that. In fact, by 
promising something which we cannot deliver and will not deliver, we 
hold out a false hope to those who perhaps would be more willing to go 
to the table if they realized for certain that the United States was 
not going to come to their aid.
  We need leadership out of the White House. Sometimes leadership means 
defining for the American people some hard realities and some hard 
truths. Leadership does not always mean intervention. Sometimes 
leadership means saying ``no, we are not able to accomplish that 
specific purpose.''
  As I said, there are slaughters going on around the world. Because 
CNN is not carrying them live, we perhaps are not as engaged or 
involved or as aware of those conflicts. But we have said in many of 
those situations no, for various reasons, we will not commit American 
troops; we will not commit American prestige; we will not involve 
ourselves in that situation.
  What I fear is that we are squandering the ability of the American 
leadership, American foreign policy, and American military to intervene 
when we need to intervene, when our vital interests are involved, when 
we can define a political objective and a military objective and 
achieve that objective, and when we can effectively bring about that 
end.
  I am afraid that by this action we are signaling we have no stomach 
for this at all, even when those vital interests are concerned, and 
that something will come along down the line like North Korea. The 
American people will say we just do not want another Bosnia; we do not 
want another Lebanon; we do not want another Somalia; we do not want 
another Vietnam. So we will not get involved when we should get 
involved and when we must get involved.
  We have squandered a great deal of leadership and prestige. We must 
not risk more. It is important that the administration define its 
foreign policy objectives and designate a spokesperson to provide 
global leadership for those foreign policy objectives.
  Mr. Christopher has fallen off the face of the map. I have not heard 
from him in weeks. I do not know in what he is involved. If he is 
speaking for the administration, he certainly is not speaking very 
loudly nor very concisely. It is hard to tell who speaks for this 
administration, if anyone.
  We have a confused policy. The President must become engaged. I know 
he wants to spend his time on domestic matters. They are important. He 
should. But he wears two hats. He is Commander in Chief, and he is the 
leader of the free world. Whether he wants to or not, he must engage 
and engage directly, define a clear, concise foreign policy, and a 
prudent military policy for this country. He must designate a 
spokesman, and provide the solid leadership that he needs and go 
forward. That is our obligation to the world. Sometimes that means 
saying no. Sometimes that means saying yes. But, for goodness sakes, 
let us stop saying both yes and no.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Massachusetts controls 25 minutes.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                          ____________________