[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 204 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR DEBATE AND CONSIDERATION OF THREE 
     MEASURES RELATING TO UNITED STATES TROOP DEPLOYMENTS IN BOSNIA

                                 ______


                               speech of

                            HON. TIM ROEMER

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 12, 1995

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 
302 as introduced by Representatives Skelton and Buyer that would 
reiterate our serious concerns about the planned deployment of 20,000 
United States ground troops to Bosnia to help implement the Dayton 
peace accord. This resolution also expresses the deep pride and 
confidence of our Nation in the brave and courageous U.S. troops 
supporting this complicated and dangerous mission. This is certainly 
the message that we want to send to our proud men and women in uniform.
  Without question, the decision to send United States troops to Bosnia 
is one of the most difficult foreign policy choices our Nation must 
confront. The risk our troops will face is real, and the long-term 
success of the Dayton agreement is far from certain. From the outset, I 
have been opposed to sending United States troops because the situation 
in Bosnia does not involve a vital and compelling national interest. 
This mission is not clearly defined, other than the exit date, and 
there is a great deal of potential danger and confusion entailed in 
nation-building. The Dayton accord involves assuring fair and free 
elections and resettling the refugees. As horrible as this strategy has 
been, the current situation in Bosnia could be solved with NATO and 
United Nations assistance.
  However, in the event that the remaining 20,000-member contingent of 
U.S. troops is deployed, we must ensure that our military commanders 
have everything they need to do their job effectively. Furthermore, we 
must be certain that the requests of the military commanders in Bosnia 
will be addressed immediately and completely. Moreover, in the interest 
of maintaining the moral and confidence in our young men and women in 
uniform, we must make them understand that their Government and their 
Nation completely supports their cause and stands behind them in this 
mission, once the President has sent them into Bosnia.
  I certainly welcome all efforts to reach a peace in Bosnia, but I 
oppose any increased United States military role in this volatile area. 
American soldiers should be deployed when and if American national 
interests are at stake. We should deploy our forces when treaties are 
broken and when our troops are threatened. There may be other 
circumstances for U.S. involvement. We should reflect these principles 
in a thoughtful doctrine or policy, not a pick and choose method.
  U.S. foreign policy has always come to the defense of sovereign 
democratic allies that came under external military attack. This is not 
consistent with the current situation in Bosnia. As heart-wrenching as 
this tragedy has been, this does not seem to justify the loss of 
American lives. It is certainly not something I can justify to my 
constituents, who have sons and daughters who may not come home.
  One can only wonder how meaningful a peace agreement is when it 
requires 60,000 foreign troops, including 20,000 Americans to enforce 
it. As horrible as this tragedy has been, the current situation in 
Bosnia might be solved without American troops. In fact, General 
Shalikashvili testified that from a strictly military perspective, the 
task of implementing a peace accord in Bosnia could be accomplished 
solely by European forces. The United States can and probably should 
bring some unique support capabilities to any peacekeeping operation, 
but these would not require a ground presence of up to 20,000 U.S. 
troops.
  We were also told that the United States must play a leading role on 
the ground because the United States is the leader of NATO and that 
Alliance solidarity would crumble if we did not. However, to argue that 
the credibility and effectiveness of NATO rest upon committing American 
forces to an ill-defined peacekeeping mission is suspect. In fact, the 
strains of a prolonged military deployment, in support of ambiguous 
objectives could do more to pull the alliance apart in the long run 
than to solidify it.
  Our message should be, ``Do not send our young men and women to 
Bosnia,'' and I agree strongly with that message. This body should say 
``No'' right now to a mission that lacks concrete strategic objectives. 
I have voted twice to do this.
  As we have learned from Somalia and Haiti, we cannot put troops in 
harm's way in a foreign country without a clear, achievable objective 
and a clearly defined exit strategy. It is a recipe for disaster and we 
certainly cannot put those lives on the line without an American chain 
of command.
  I do not rise in support of this resolution to undermine our 
President. I am an ardent supporter of our Armed Forces, and I am a 
strong supporter of humanitarian aid to the people of Bosnia. I support 
the resolution for the same reason that I voted against lifting the 
arms embargo against the Governments of Bosnia and Herzegovenia: to 
prevent the Americanization of the Balkan conflict and save American 
lives. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

                          ____________________