[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 187 (Monday, November 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17524-S17525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        SENDING TROOPS TO BOSNIA

  Mr. THOMAS. I rise, Mr. President, to talk about Bosnia, to talk 
about the thing that, I guess, is before all of us as American 
citizens--decisions, some of which, unfortunately, have apparently 
already been made, but the major decisions are still to be made.
  I have thought a lot about this tragedy, as most of us have. 
Certainly, it has been before us almost nightly on TV, a great deal of 
discussion about it: some 43 months of war, over 200,000 people killed, 
a real human tragedy, of course. All of us feel badly about that. I 
have also had the opportunity to travel there recently. About a month 
ago, seven of us from the Senate had a chance to go there. I must tell 
you, I came back no more convinced that we have a role there with 
ground troops than I did before I left.
  I think the idea of inserting 20,000 ground troops is a mistake. 
There are a number of questions that, I think, the answers to which 
lead to that conclusion. The basic one, of course, is: What is the 
national interest? I think that question needs to be asked in each of 
the kinds of commitments we make--major commitments, particularly of 
Armed Forces. What is our role throughout the world? There are many 
places in which there is unrest and tragedy, and there are a number of 
places in which there is civil war. Is it in our national interest to 
intercede in each of those, to send 10,000 troops, 20,000 troops? I do 
not know the answer. But I think not. I do not think it is in our 
national interest to be the policeman of the world in civil uprisings 
such as this.
  I guess we have to ask ourselves, are we to police regional peace 
throughout the world wherever it is threatened? Do we have an 
obligation to secure regional peace throughout the world by sending our 
troops into these kinds of situations? What is the national interest? 
What kind of national interest does deserve military attention? I think 
this is the basic issue. All of the other things we talk about are 
pretty secondary to that. The President, of course, has not been able 
to lay out convincingly that interdiction and involvement of 20,000 or 
25,000 U.S. troops is indeed in our national interest.
  Let us examine some of the administration's concerns and arguments. 
They have been here in our Committee of Foreign Relations. We had a 
hearing with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, as 
well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff. One of the arguments is that killing 
is morally wrong. Of course, we all agree with that. But then should we 
send troops wherever that occurs? Should we be involved each time 
killing occurs? I think we would be overwhelmed by the number of times 
that we would saddle up and go to Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, and endless 
other places, if killing is in fact the issue of national interest that 
promotes the sending of 25,000 troops.

  We hear that the conflict will expand. Frankly, I have to tell you 
that I do not believe that is nearly as imperative as it was 43 months 
ago. My impression, frankly, from being there--and I was only there 4 
days, so I am not an expert by any means --as you would imagine, these 
people are very tired of fighting. They are looking for solutions 
themselves, as you would imagine they would be. The notion that this is 
going to expand now if we do not move 25,000 troops in I do not believe 
is a basis in fact.
  We were there going down the street of Sarajevo, and they point out, 
almost with pride, that there is the bridge where the Grand Duke was 
shot before the start of World War I. Really, that adds very little to 
today's expansion of another war. But if you want to look at historic 
things, in that country, the guerrillas, during World War II, were 
never chased down. They never surrendered. In that country, in the 
mountains, these kinds of troops will go on forever, if they choose to. 
Another is that if we do not intercede at this level, we will then be 
isolationists in the world and we would be withdrawing from our role of 
leadership. I cannot imagine that argument, as involved as we are 
around the world, both in troops, commerce, and trade, and we are 
involved in all of the organizations that have to do with security, 
trade, and with the development of international relations. We are 
isolationists? Give me a break. That is hardly what our activities can 
be called.
  It seems to me that the principal reason the President is pushing as 
hard as he is, is that 2 years ago, he indicated we would send 25,000 
troops. Now it is 20,000. Why not 10,000? Why not 15,000? We spent 4 
days there. The first day was with the Unified European Command. I must 
tell you, I was very proud, as always, of the American troops, who are 
training to be part of this undertaking. But at that time, they were 
talking about 25,000 American troops, talking about a total of 90,000 
NATO troops, with another 15,000 already there--over 110,000 troops in 
this area. The Senator from South Carolina just spoke about the 
agreement. I guess I have to say that if the agreement is one that is 
agreed to by the warring parties--genuinely agreed to--then you could 
say, why do you need 90,000 troops to enforce it? If it is not agreed 
to, then the Secretary of Defense, and others, said we should not be 
there. You have to fight your way in. If you have to fight to make 
peace, then that is not our mission. That has been made clear that we 
will not be there. So there has to be an agreement that has genuine 
accord. We will see. I hope there is. I think the United States and the 
State Department have done a great job in bringing together these 
people to some kind of a peace agreement.
  Why is it so important that we have to define the national interest? 
You hear a lot about being concerned, as we 

[[Page S 17525]]
should be, with putting troops in harm's way. Frankly, often troops are 
in harm's way. That is what troops are for. The issue is not harm's 
way; the issue is why they are there. If the troops are there with a 
bona fide national interest, then we try to avoid harm's way. But that 
is not the criteria. The cost. When you talk about $1 billion, $2 
billion, I think we spent that much in Haiti. Can you imagine that this 
will cost less than Haiti? I do not believe so. Is it in the national 
interest to spend $3 billion, $4 billion? That is a question.
  Maybe more important than anything was the lack of specific goals. In 
the hearing that I mentioned with the Joint Chiefs, the general said we 
will get the job done. I believe that. I believe our Armed Forces will 
get the job done. I ask, how will you know? What is the job that is to 
be done? Frankly, I do not think anyone knows precisely.

  Pull out in 1 year? I have a hunch that is a little bit political, 
that the notion is that we know you cannot leave troops there very 
long.
  What if you are not through in a year? How do you know you are 
through? What is it that signifies having the job done? We were very 
concerned when we talked to the command. What do you do in this zone? 
Do you have check points with half a dozen soldiers--I do not know--
that are subject to raids by small bands? Do you put them in large 
groups and patrol? The notion was, if you are fired on, you get to fire 
back. That is right, the way it ought to be. It was also, if there is 
an attack, we should withdraw because we are not there to fight but to 
keep peace. If there is no peace we would not be there. Sort of a 
conundrum.
  So, Mr. President, it seems to me that it is an almost unsolvable 
situation. I think we can be involved. I think people want us to be 
involved. I think we indeed have been involved. The question of 20,000 
troops is quite a different matter. I have to say, in the time I was in 
Wyoming, I really did not find anyone who supported that idea.
  So we have a situation of 43 months of war in the former Yugoslavia, 
more than 250,000 people killed, an ethnic war, a continuation of 
something that has gone on a very long time. The question is, do we 
place ourselves in the middle of this, between the Serbs?
  One of the things that has happened, I believe, partly as a result of 
this body's taking action on lifting the arms embargo, is that we did 
tend to equalize the forces. Croatians and Moslems got together in the 
federation which sort of leveled the playing field of the Serbs, and 
then NATO's airstrikes completed that job. You noticed a great change 
in what was happening.
  So we are faced with an ancient ethnic and religious conflict. 
Frankly, it is hard to know who is on what side.
  Another obstacle is to overcome how you handle the United States and 
Russia being there at the same time. Russians will not be under the 
control of the NATO but still want to be in a segment. The winter is 
certainly a worry. I know we can handle it, but nevertheless it is 
tough.
  Mr. President, I do not believe there has been demonstrated--and 
quite frankly I do not believe there will be demonstrated--an 
indication that placement of these troops in the former Yugoslavia is 
in the international interests. I think that ought to be the criterion. 
That ought to be the measurement. In the next few weeks we will need to 
make that measurement.
  All of us need to be involved whether we are in the Senate, whether 
we are citizens, whether we vote. This is a U.S. decision, and it will 
have to be made by all.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________