[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 190 (Thursday, November 30, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              QUESTIONS CONCERNING TROOPS IN BOSNIA REMAIN

                                 ______


                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 30, 1995

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues an 
editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on November 29, 
1995.

     Speech Didn't Build Confidence; Questions About Bosnia Remain

       People who looked for a specific, confidence-building 
     explanation for sending American troops to Bosnia were 
     entitled to be disappointed with President Clinton's speech 
     Monday night.
       Clinton addressed the nation to seek support for his 
     proposal to send 20,000 troops into an arena where political, 
     ethnic and religious factions have been waging war for 
     centuries. He said 20,000 troops are needed to help NATO 
     enforce the peace agreement negotiated at Dayton, Ohio, by 
     the presidents of Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia.
       The president was unconvincing even on the central question 
     of why the national interest requires placing American men 
     and women on the ground in the middle of this ancient 
     conflict. (The U.S. Air Force and Navy already are heavily 
     involved.)
       Yes, as he said, America has ideals. Yes, it has fought in 
     Europe twice before to ``triumph over tyranny.'' Yes, it has 
     certain international responsibilities that come with being 
     the world's most powerful nation. And certainly the suffering 
     of innocent civilians in Bosnia-Herzegovina has touched 
     hearts around the world.
       But a recitation of those facts doesn't constitute a 
     reasoned argument for putting American ground troops in 
     extreme peril. This isn't World War I, when America came to 
     the aid of Western democracies to prevent their being crushed 
     by imperial powers. Neither is it World War II, when America 
     entered and ultimately led the great struggle to prevent the 
     Nazis and fascists from enslaving a good part of the world.
       The conflict in the Balkans is a regional problem. No one 
     has demonstrated that it is a threat to Western civilization 
     in general or to America's national interests.
       The president said, ``We're all vulnerable to the organized 
     forces of intolerance and destruction, terrorism, ethnic, 
     religious and regional rivalries, the spread of organized 
     crime and weapons on mass destruction and drug trafficking. 
     Just as surely as fascism and communism, these forces also 
     threaten freedom and democracy, peace and prosperity. And 
     they, too, demand American leadership.''
       Few would question the world's vulnerability to those 
     forces. But what does any of that have to do with sending 
     U.S. troops to Bosnia? If these ``organized forces'' are the 
     primary reason for committing troops, why doesn't the United 
     States have an infantry division in Rwanda, in Northern 
     Ireland, in India, in Pakistan?
       Clinton said the Americans would fight back if attacked. 
     ``We will fight fire with fire, and then some,'' he said. 
     Clinton said the mission would take about a year.
       How does anybody know that? As * * * noted, animosities 
     have been known to lie dormant in the Balkans for years, then 
     break out in bitter, bloody warfare. What guarantee does 
     Clinton have that fighting wouldn't resume as soon as the 
     Americans left?
       What assurances does he offer that the mission won't go on 
     indefinitely? How could anybody be sure that the fighting 
     wouldn't escalate if American troops were attacked and forced 
     to defend themselves?
       In promising that the troops would help restore normal life 
     for the people of Bosnia, Clinton made it sound as though the 
     people of Bosnia were one society. They are badly divided, 
     however. What Clinton didn't say is that the peace treaty, to 
     accommodate the fact that the factions detest each other 
     deeply, provides for the partition of the country into a 
     Bosnian-Serb sector and a Muslim-Croat sector. * * *

                          ____________________