[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17544-S17545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       AMERICAN TROOPS IN BOSNIA

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the debate over whether the United States 
should contribute its troops to a NATO peacekeeping force in Bosnia 
will be the focus of many speeches on this floor in the coming days. It 
is a subject all of us have anticipated and pondered and wrestled with 
for some months now, and it is one of those decisions that no one likes 
to make. It is fraught with uncertainties and the undeniable likelihood 
that Americans will be injured or killed.
  There will be many chances to speak on this, but having thought about 
it for some time and discussed it with the President and Secretary of 
Defense and others over the past weeks, and after listening to the 
President's speech last night and the responses of some of those who 
oppose sending troops, I want to say a few words as the debate begins.
  Mr. President, even before the peace agreement was signed at Dayton, 
the House of Representatives passed legislation to prevent the 
President from deploying U.S. troops to enforce a peace agreement 
without the consent of Congress. I believe the President should seek 
the approval of Congress before sending troops to Bosnia, although I do 
not believe the Constitution requires it in this instance where the 
parties have signed a peace agreement. I felt it was both unhelpful and 
unnecessary for the House to pass legislation in the midst of the 
negotiations and before a peace agreement was signed.
  But just as President Bush sought congressional approval for sending 
U.S. troops to the Persian Gulf--although half a million were there 
before approval was given--President Clinton has sought congressional 
approval, and there will be ample time to debate it before the formal 
signing of the agreement.
  The decision to send Americans into harms way is the most difficult 
and dangerous that any President has to make. It should be done only 
when a compelling national interest is at stake, and when there is no 
other alternative.
  Like many or perhaps even most Senators, the majority of my 
constituents, at least of those Vermonters who have contacted me, do 
not believe that it is in our national interest to send Americans to 
Bosnia. They genuinely fear another costly, drawn out quagmire like 
Vietnam. Some of them fought in that war, or had family members who 
died there. Others fear a debacle like Somalia, where in a matter of 
days a well-intentioned humanitarian mission became a poorly thought-
out, ill-prepared peacemaking mission that ended in tragedy.

  It is the President's job to convince the American people that Bosnia 
is not Vietnam, it is not Somalia, and that our national interests 
compel us to take part. He made a good start last night. There are 
still important questions that need answers--the President said as much 
himself--but I am convinced that the case for sending Americans to 
Bosnia can be made, and I intend to help the President make it.
  Mr. President, in the past 4 years, a quarter of a million people, 
the vast majority defenseless civilians, have lost their lives in the 
former Yugoslavia. We have all read the blood curdling reports of 
hundreds and even thousands of people being rounded up at gunpoint and 
systematically executed or even buried alive.
  Countless others have had their throats cut after being horribly 
tortured. Some have been made to eat the flesh and drink the blood of 
their countrymen. Thousands of women have been raped. Men have been 
forced to watch their wives and daughters raped and killed before their 
eyes. All simply because of their ethnicity, or because they lived on 
land others wanted for themselves.
  The war has produced 2 million refugees, victims of ethnic cleansing. 
Hundreds of thousands more have lived in squalor for years in the 
rubble of what remains of their homes, without electricity, heat, or 
running water.
  There are many, including myself, who believe that NATO should have 
acted much earlier and with far greater force to stop the genocide in 
Bosnia. I opposed the use of American ground troops to try to win the 
war, but we gave too much deference to those who said that airpower 
would never compel the Serbs to negotiate peace. NATO should have been 
given the authority to use unrelenting force when U.N. resolutions were 
violated time and again with impunity.
  Our greatest collective failure was to put the United Nations in 
charge of a peacekeeping mission where there was no peace to keep, and 
when it was unwilling or unable to back up its own threats. These 
failures, which caused grievous damage to NATO's credibility, will 
haunt us for years to come.
  But the situation has changed dramatically since then. Sustained NATO 
bombing, coupled with gains by the Moslem and Croat forces on the 
battlefield, have shown the Serbs that they cannot win what they set 
out to achieve. The exhaustion of the warring factions, coupled with a 
period of extraordinarily forceful American diplomacy, has created an 
unprecedented opportunity to end one of the most brutal wars the world 
has seen in half a century.
  There should be no mistake. The credibility of the U.S. Government is 
deeply invested in the success of the peace agreement, and success of 
the agreement depends absolutely on NATO's enforcement of it. The 
parties signed with that understanding. At the same time, NATO's own 
credibility and effectiveness depend on U.S. leadership. Indeed, 
without U.S. participation, there will be no NATO force, and the peace 
agreement will almost certainly collapse.
  Mr. President, since the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of 
the cold war, NATO's future has been uncertain. Some have suggested 
that NATO has outlived its usefulness. Others say that since the 
rationale for NATO--deterring a Soviet invasion of Europe--is gone, 
NATO should become a political alliance. Still others want to quickly 
expand NATO to include all or most of Eastern Europe, and perhaps even 
some of the former Soviet republics.
  I mention this because NATO's future is one of the most compelling 
reasons why it is essential for the United States to participate in a 
NATO peacekeeping force in Bosnia.
  I have been among the strongest supporters of assistance to Russia 
and the other former Soviet States. A democratic Russia is obviously a 
major foreign policy priority for the United States. Despite many 
setbacks, there has been remarkable progress in Russia, Ukraine, and 
elsewhere in the former Soviet Union. But who can predict the next 
decade? Who can say that the fervent nationalism that remains strong 
there will not increase to a point when it becomes threatening? It is 
simply too soon to say what lies beyond this transitional period. 

[[Page S 17545]]

  I have been reluctant to support the rapid expansion of NATO without 
a thorough discussion of the implications, for fear that it could fuel 
the very nationalism in Russia that we seek to discourage.
  But neither am I among those who see no role for NATO today. On the 
contrary, the United States has an enormous stake in preserving NATO's 
strength. While NATO's focus will undoubtedly shift over time, the 
future holds too many uncertainties, and there are too many areas of 
potential conflict around the world where important interests of the 
United States and our allies are at stake, to allow NATO's strength to 
erode.
  There is no other alliance that comes close to NATO, in power, in 
readiness, and in importance to the United States. NATO may not have 
sought the role of peacekeeper in Bosnia, but neither can it avoid it.
  Mr. President, I cannot say whether this peace agreement will survive 
the test of time. Perhaps no one can. There is ample reason to be 
pessimistic, given the history of broken promises and ethnic hatred in 
the former Yugoslavia. Since the agreement was signed, it has become 
clear that no party is completely satisfied, and some have expressed 
grave misgivings with some aspects of it. If the agreement unravels, 
NATO forces may be forced to withdraw, rather than be drawn into the 
fighting. Even withdrawal would be risky.
  But virtually everyone knowledgeable about the situation there agrees 
that this is by far the best chance for peace since the war began 4 
years ago. We and our European allies have an immense interest in 
preventing the continuation of a destabilizing war in Europe, and I 
believe we must take this chance.
  The President has taken a courageous step, a step that reflects the 
best of this country. Every American should consider the alternative. 
More mass murder. More towns shelled and burned. More starving 
children. More orphans. More horrifying atrocities that are reminiscent 
of the dark ages. If this does not compel us to help enforce an 
agreement we brokered to end this calamity, what further amount of 
inhuman brutality would it take? Should we wait for the slaughter of 
another 100,000, or 200,000?
  The President is right. We have a moral responsibility to take part. 
The Europeans were unable to end the war themselves. United States 
leadership was not the only factor, but without it there would be no 
peace agreement, and the war would go on indefinitely. We should be 
proud of it, and stand behind it.
  Some have suggested that we can lead without sending troops. I 
disagree. We cannot maintain our credibility as the leader of NATO if 
we are not prepared to assume some of the risk. We should remember that 
two-thirds of the NATO force will be troops from our NATO allies and 
others.
  Mr. President, our troops are the best trained in the world, but we 
cannot eliminate the risks. There are 2 million landmines in Bosnia 
alone, hidden under mud and snow. Each one cost only a few dollars, but 
one false step could mean the loss of any American soldier's legs or 
life. The Pentagon says that landmines are among the most serious 
threats our troops will face there.
  This is ironic, since the Pentagon has been actively lobbying against 
my efforts to show leadership by halting the use of antipersonnel 
landmines, which claim hundreds of innocent lives each week. Two-thirds 
of the Senate voted for it, but the Pentagon refuses. In the past few 
months, several of our European allies have stopped their use and 
production of these indiscriminate weapons, but the Pentagon refuses.
  A quarter of the Americans killed in the Persian Gulf died from 
landmines. A quarter of American casualties in Vietnam were from mines. 
I can only wonder how many more Americans will needlessly lose their 
legs or their lives from landmines before the Pentagon gets the 
message.
  We cannot eliminate the risks, but President Clinton has established 
the right conditions before US troops can be deployed. If the mission 
is limited in time, clear in scope, and achievable, as the President 
has insisted, we should support it. Our troops must be backed by broad 
rules of engagement that enable them to defend themselves with whatever 
amount of preemptive force is needed in any circumstance. That does not 
mean waiting to shoot until they are shot at.
  Mr. President, I expect to speak again as the debate on this unfolds. 
I intend to support the President, and I expect there will be Senators 
I deeply respect who are on the other side. But at the end of the day, 
if Americans are sent to Bosnia as I believe they will be, I have no 
doubt that we all will support them, and we will all be proud of them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

                          ____________________