[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17592-S17593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 BOSNIA

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, just a couple of other things I wanted to 
ask the Senator from Colorado.
  In that there is a 10-day timeframe from the time he came back and 
the time I was over in that area, a concern was expressed to me at that 
time--and keeping in mind that the lines we have now seen on the map 
near Tuzla, which I am sure the Senator has had a chance to discuss, 
there is a problem that there are approximately 3 million refugees, if 
you count them from all throughout that area that those lines on the 
map are going to preclude at that time, they said more than 50 percent 
of them would not be able to return to their homelands.
  Their concern was that this is going to increase the number of rogue 
elements that were there, that anyone who thinks there is a peace 
accord, first thing a refugee wants to do is go home. The fact that 
they would not be able to return home would increase the number of 
rogue elements that are around or that join other elements.
  The second thing is their concern over what we refer to, and the 
administration refers to, has never really been defined as systematic 
violations. There are two ways we can get out of this. One is, 12 
months goes by; and the other is if there is a systematic violation, 
meaning one of the major factions 

[[Page S 17593]]
is violating the peace accord or whatever accord it is they have 
initialed and they are proposing to sign.
  The fact that there is no way for the military, the soldier in the 
field, to know if there is an uprising of some type or a conflict, 
whether that is a systematic violation or maybe just some rogue element 
that is firing upon troops--did they express that concern when you were 
there?
  Mr. BROWN. Those concerns were expressed, and added to this is the 
fact that the border will be free flowing. You will not have an 
interdiction at the border. It will be very difficult to tell if the 
people coming across the border are refugees and allowed to go back to 
an area that has changed hands, or if they are terrorists, or if they 
are a military element.
  They also expressed great concern about a couple of other aspects. 
One was a conviction on the part of the military personnel that I 
talked to--U.S. military personnel--that none of the parties would 
abide. When I asked, they said, ``Look, the normal pattern here is 
people sign agreements and then when spring comes, they go ahead and 
proceed with their plans afoot.'' Frankly, our people who are on the 
ground were very skeptical that you would see any of the three parties 
follow these agreements.

  The problem, of course, is that you have U.S. military personnel in a 
position that is very difficult to defend in between them at a point 
they have wholesale violations of the peace agreements.
  At this point, it is very difficult for me to see what it is U.S. 
personnel accomplish in that area, other than being targets.
  Mr. INHOFE. Certainly in a 12-month period, if we are, in fact, 
committed to a timeframe--and I do not know from my reading and, of 
course, my experience in the military, of any time we have gone into 
hostile conflict with a time-oriented departure--it is always a 
function or an action, something that has taken place.
  It was General Huptmann, I believe, who used this analogy, and maybe 
he used it with you. He said, ``Twelve months is like putting your hand 
in water for 12 months and you take it out and look down and nothing 
has changed.'' Twelve months in the Balkans does not mean anything. If 
we are going to be out in 12 months, those individuals that would be 
warring factions would be in a position to start up again.
  Mr. BROWN. One thing I might say, it will mean the expenditure of 
$1.5 billion to perhaps $3 billion. I say to the Senator, I suspect 
this body will face supplemental appropriation requests from the 
administration that exceed those numbers.
  There simply is no way to put down the 20,000 people they are talking 
about in that region, or perhaps 25,000 they have talked about--my 
guess is it may be the higher figure--without the expenditures of huge 
amounts of money in roads, in clearing areas, in some sort of quarters 
for the personnel that will be there, and the whole infrastructure they 
are talking about as a backup.
  What will be different 12 months from now is an enormous expenditure 
of U.S. Treasury in taxpayers' money on an enterprise that does not 
have a defined function or a defined date of accomplishment.
  Mr. INHOFE. I think the Senator from Colorado is being very 
conservative when he quotes the figures of the administration of $1.5 
to $2 billion. I have seen figures up to $4.5 to $6 billion.
  I recall not too many weeks ago the administration came to this body 
for a $1.4 billion supplemental appropriation to take care of some of 
the past humanitarian gestures that were forecast to cost a third or a 
fourth of that amount. It is hard to talk about dollars when we are 
talking about human lives.
  My concern is if we are concerned, as the President indicated he was 
last night, about NATO and the integrity of NATO, where is NATO going 
to be if we go in there and start this thing, the body bags start 
coming back to America and people start getting concerned as they were 
as the incidents of Mogadishu? Then we cut and run, which surely we 
would do at that time. Then, where is NATO and the integrity of NATO?
  Mr. BROWN. I think the Senator has put his finger on the entire 
problem. Before we commit U.S. troops to a role where they are in 
danger, the Weinberger rules of engagement, I think, provide a good 
basis.
  It seems to me for every American, just simple and basic 
understanding, before you send troops into combat, you ought to have a 
clearly defined military mission that is accomplishable, and without 
that, they should not go.
  What we are literally seeing is the use of U.S. troops as 
international social workers. The fact is, U.S. armed services 
personnel ought to be used as soldiers to accomplish a military 
mission. That is what they are trained for. That is what they are 
accomplished at. That is what they are good at.
  For U.S. troops to be used in this function without a clear mission, 
at least in this Senator's view, is an invitation to a tragedy of the 
first order.
  Mr. INHOFE. I am very much concerned about it, and I know we are 
using up more time than we should.
  Let me just conclude and speak only for myself. I have listened to 
the President. I thought the President would come out with something 
new that has not already been part of the debate. There was not one new 
argument or element introduced into the debate in the President's 
statement last night.
  In the absence of that, knowing that each hour that goes by the 
President is deploying more Americans into that hostile area, I have to 
get on record right here in this body, Mr. President, as saying I will 
fight with every fiber of my being to stop the President from sending 
troops in on the ground into Bosnia.

                          ____________________