[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 189 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H13765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE OCCUPATION OF BOSNIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I want to spend some time this afternoon and 
talk to us about the occupation of Bosnia. The President has already 
decided that we are going to be sending troops into Bosnia, 
approximately the number of 20,000, under the alleged peacekeeping 
mission. However, I think as we see the events of Bosnia unfold, we are 
starting to realize that there are many questions unanswered, in that 
the direction of those questions and the partial answers that we are 
receiving is saying that this is not a peacekeeping effort, and that 
this is a peacemaking effort which will probably result in an 
occupation unless we take some drastic changes of direction now.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a big concern, I think, to every American. If it 
is not on their thoughts today, it should be. It will be tomorrow. I 
think it is a well-known fact now in the media and in Congress that the 
President is going to send troops to Bosnia. He has the constitutional 
authority to send those troops. He has thought this out. It has been 
planned in the Pentagon. There will be troops before the end of the 
year in Bosnia.
  It is very frustrating for a Member of Congress, because we are 
unable to stop this action. We have repeatedly voted to stop from 
sending troops to Bosnia, yet every effort on the part of the Congress 
has been met with disdain, with the turning from our advice, and the 
President has not yet come to us with the arguments, with the right 
ideas, with the right plan in order to gain not only the support of 
Congress, but the support of the American public.
  Some of the questions that are arising out of this tragic mistake 
that we are about to make are, No. 1, the President says there will be 
casualties. There are risks involved. I think this Member of Congress 
and others would like to know what is the acceptable level of 
casualties in Bosnia. Is it 1,300 troops per day? Is it the loss of 250 
young men and women each day we are over there? Is that acceptable?
  I can tell you what is acceptable in Kansas, in the Fourth District 
of Kansas. It is zero. No casualties. But that is not what we have 
heard. There will be casualties, but we do not know how many.

                              {time}  1330

  Another thing is that we were told that it is going to be 20,000 
troops, but now we are finding out that it may be 30,000, maybe 35,000. 
There will be some held in float. There will be some stationed nearby. 
According to the War College, it takes seven troops to support one 
combat troop. So if it is 20,000, that means it is 140,000 with support 
personnel. If it is 30,000, it goes up to 210,000. Pretty soon, we are 
talking about a quarter of a million people, and they are in there for 
the alleged duration, which is supposed to be 12 months.
  Will there be a rotation? If there is a rotation, where will the 
training take place? Does that mean that there is now a half a million 
troops involved? If so, what would happen if North Korea should cross 
the border and what would happen if Saddam Hussein again crosses 
another border? What would happen if a conflict occurs in Yugoslavia or 
some other place like Macedonia?
  This country is not funded in the Department of Defense to handle a 
two-scenario conflict. Regardless of what the leadership in the 
administration has said, it is simply not there. Members of the 
Pentagon know that.
  If this is an occupation, which it appears to be leaning towards, 
20,000 is not enough. Probably 200,000 is more like what it will take, 
just ground troops. What is the mission here?
  Another question is, what is the geographical area that we will be 
required to defend? Is it near the hottest area? Near the Serbs? Mr. 
Speaker, we have already had air strikes on the Serbs. There are some 
40,000 to 60,000 rogue Serbs who do not agree with the peace agreement, 
and we will be near there. Our troops are planned to land at Tuzla, 
which is just about a mile from the Serb current locations. A mortar 
round can travel a mile.
  Other questions are, is the duration of 12 months enough? We have had 
a century's old conflict and we think we can solve it in 12 months? 
What firepower will we have there? What is the funding level? It 
started out at $1 billion. It is now up to $3 billion. Would it not be 
more economical in terms of human lives to offer to rebuild the entire 
country with this $3 billion instead of spending it on troops, putting 
them in harm's way and accepting some level of casualties?
  There are many more questions. One is the question of leadership. 
Will America not be a leader if we back away from this? There are many 
ways to lead, through NATO and through other ways. We can lead through 
air power, through intelligence, through strategy, through logistical 
support. We have many ways that we can lead. But to send troops into 
harm's way without the support of the American public, without the 
support of the America people, the Congress, the answer is no, Mr. 
President.

                          ____________________