[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 193 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14142-H14143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT DEPLOYMENT OF TROOPS TO BOSNIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ensign). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to express my concerns 
with respect to policies on the deployment of troops in Bosnia.
  This past year this Congress has experienced many highs in the 
legislative process. However, at this moment, I have a great sense of 
frustration with the current policies of deploying ground troops in 
Bosnia. We have spoken out on several occasions, and I would like to 
reiterate here what has occurred here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives over the past several weeks.

[[Page H 14143]]

  Several weeks ago we had a resolution before the House at the time, 
which passed this House, which said to the President that he should not 
be committing our troops to Bosnia or that the peace process should not 
be based on the assumption that we would promise to send ground troops 
to Bosnia. That passed this House by a significant majority.
  Shortly thereafter, several days or a week later, we had a second 
resolution expressing our concern that we should not deploy troops to 
Bosnia without the President coming before the Congress and making that 
appropriate request. Neither of these resolutions have been adhered to 
by our President.
  As we stand here this evening, we know that troops have already been 
deployed, and, in my opinion, we have put the cart before the horse. We 
have sent troops to Bosnia, ground troops, without having established 
the compelling interests and the necessary reasons why we should be 
deploying troops to that area of conflict of the world.
  My great concerns primarily rest with the fact that it seems to me 
that the real reason why we have troops in that area of the world at 
this moment is because of a relatively casual offhand promise made by 
our President over a year ago which, in fact, committed that if a peace 
accord were subsequently to be reached, that he, in fact, would enforce 
that peace accord with the use of American troops, risking putting our 
troops in harm's way. The problem with such a policy on such a serious 
issue is that the promise was made before a peace accord was reached. 
The promise was made without the benefits of knowing the full extent of 
that peace accord, without knowing the serious risks involved with 
deploying troops in that area, because the peace accord had not yet 
been formulated and without knowing how sincere the parties were to 
actually going forth with these peace missions.
  The problem with such a policy is obvious to me and certainly 
obvious, I believe, to the American people, as it should be. Never 
should we risk or commit our troops by way of a promise by our 
President or any President to anyplace in the world before, in fact, we 
know the full extent of the peace accord reached or any other accord on 
which we are basing the deployment of troops. It is foolhardy, in my 
opinion.
  Such foreign policy must be avoided in the future, and we must, 
therefore, today stress our strong stand in opposition to the 
deployment of ground troops to Bosnia. It is not enough, in my opinion, 
to say there is a compelling American interest. That does not make a 
compelling American interest so. We have not heard, in my opinion, at 
least, the real reasons why there is a need to deploy troops to that 
very dangerous area.
  I would like to just relate to what has occurred by way of some 40 or 
so years of history in the region of the world. I have little doubt, 
and I certainly am hopeful that with the deployment of troops in that 
area, there will come some stability amongst the fighting factions in 
that area. We can certainly look at the recent history to see that that 
will probably be the case.

  In recent years, under communist rule, we have not had the civil 
discord and the fighting and warring factions that have occurred in the 
last 3\1/2\ years. That is not by way of coincidence. It took the 
presence of force, military force, and a forceful hand to maintain 
stability in that area. Similarly, I think the introduction of American 
troops into that area for this limited time may very well create an 
atmosphere of some civility for the time the troops are there.
  The policy is already that these troops will be removed in a year. We 
are hearing now the President even saying perhaps these troops can be 
removed and brought home in 7 months. It suggests to me the real reason 
that these troops were deployed there was simply to do face-saving 
based upon a political promise or a promise that was made we would use 
our troops. I do not believe our President had any alternative once 
that promise was made, and it is unfortunate, because I think our 
troops are really being deployed there as a face-saving technique to 
the world to justify the promise that was made over a year ago, and 
that to me is the weakest of reasons why we should have troops in 
harm's way.
  Let me also say that the arguments advanced by the White House a week 
ago sounded very similar to arguments advanced in the early stages of 
the Vietnam War. The arguments advanced in the early stages of the 
Vietnam War were that we had a commitment to try to preserve civility 
in the area of Vietnam, that we had a commitment at that time to 
protect that area. This argument certainly falls short even today.
  In closing, let me just say, finally, there is no national interest, 
and I would support our troops enough, Mr. Speaker, that we do 
everything possible to bring them home as soon as we can.

                          ____________________