[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 44 (Friday, March 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2990-S2992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 KOSOVO

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the issue of Kosovo. 
It is obviously a topic of extreme importance. It appears that the 
administration and the President have decided to use American military 
force in Kosovo in conjunction with NATO. This, to me, is a serious 
mistake.
  I wish this administration had a set policy we could turn to and say, 
``This is why they have decided to do this.'' But they do not. In fact, 
the Kosovo decision has many parallels to the Haiti decision, and the 
Haiti decision, as we know, has turned into a complete disaster, 
costing millions of dollars--potentially, I think, billions of 
dollars--although luckily no American lives, but it has not corrected 
the problem in Haiti in any significant way.
  Kosovo, on the other hand, has the potential of not only to cost 
billions of dollars, but also to cost American lives. It is a mistake 
to pursue a policy of using American force without a doctrine or a 
guideline or a theorem as to why you are using that force.

[[Page S2991]]

  My belief is that before we use American force in this world today to 
address issues which are ethnically driven, religiously driven, or 
which involve civil war type of instances, which are the new threats we 
so often seem to get involved in--I am not talking about issues of 
terrorism, which is a separate issue, or state-sponsored terrorism, 
which is a separate issue. I am talking about regions of the world 
where we are seeing ethnic, civil, and political violence of such a 
nature that American forces are considered to be sent into that region.

  It is my belief that before we make a decision to pursue the use of 
American force and put American lives at risk, we need to answer three 
basic questions.
  The first question is this: Is there a national interest, is there an 
American interest, which is significant enough to justify risking 
American lives? Is there a national interest which can be clearly and 
concisely explained, if it has to be explained, regrettably, to a 
parent, to a wife, to a child of an American service man or woman who 
may lose their life because we have pursued the use of American force? 
Is there a definable American interest of such significance that we are 
willing to put at risk the cream of America's young people--our service 
individuals?
  So far, this administration has set forth absolutely no presentation 
of doctrine or ideas or position which establishes that there is such 
an American interest. There may be a European interest, no question 
about that. Clearly, what is going on in that part of the world is 
horrific in many instances. But is there an American interest that 
justifies using American force and risking American life? We have not 
heard that explained to us.
  If people are being indiscriminately killed by a group of thugs, then 
are we not also supposed to be in Georgia or Azerbaijan or Rwanda or 
any number of other places in this world? In fact, I think there was 
some tallying up of this, and there is something like 39 places in the 
world today where there is this type of activity going on, and some of 
it involving much larger deaths in the way of civilian casualties than 
is occurring in Kosovo. Of course, any death is a tragedy.
  The fact is that there has to be a reason for Americans stepping in 
to try to stop that conflict. In this instance, we have not seen a 
differentiation that justifies us going into Kosovo versus going into 
some other of these 39 confrontations around the world. There has been 
no definition given to the purpose of the use of American military 
force, other than that this conflict appears on television. This 
conflict involves a European state. This conflict, therefore, maybe 
attracts more sympathy from a country which has always identified 
itself with Europe, but sympathy is not a good reason for putting at 
risk American lives.
  The Balkans represent no strategic issue for the United States today 
of any significance. It is a strategic issue for the European nations, 
and it is a European issue which should be addressed by the European 
nations, but clearly there is no definable American purpose for going 
into Kosovo, and this administration has presented none.
  I was at a briefing where I heard the Secretary of State say 
something to the effect, this might lead to World War III if we let 
this conflict ensue between Serbia and Kosovo, because she was 
referring back to World War II and World War I which started in this 
region of the world.
  The dynamics of the world have changed. There are no alliances which 
are going to cause the domino effect that is going to bring the death 
of the Archduke of the Austro-Hungarian Empire into play with Germany, 
with Prussia. There are no such alliances that exist today. There is no 
Adolf Hitler who has the capacity to project force throughout Europe as 
a result of actions occurring in the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. In 
fact, the Balkans have been, for all intents and purposes, 
strategically bypassed.
  There are other regions of the world where America has significant 
strategic interest--Iraq is obviously the most apparent at this time, 
but there are others also--where, if we have to use American force, we 
should use American force. But to use American force arbitrarily and 
simply because the region happens to be European and because it happens 
to be on television, and for no other apparent reason, is a very hard 
explanation to make, should American lives be lost, to the parent or 
the spouse or the child.
  That is the first point we must test. The first test of engagement 
is, Is there a vital national interest for us? No, there is not. I want 
to come back to that because there are a couple of other points on 
that.
  Let's go on to the second point. The second point is, Can the use of 
American force stabilize or terminate the conflict?
  When we are looking at these racial, political, religious, civil war 
type situations, can the introduction of American force have a long, 
lasting effect? That has to be the second question. And if it cannot, 
then why would we put the force in?
  I think anybody who has done even a cursory study of the Balkans 
knows that these folks, these cultures, regrettably, have a historic, 
almost a genetic, attitude which causes constant conflict and which 
creates tremendous antagonism which leads to violence between these 
different cultures.
  I have tried to trace it back a little bit. I was reading the history 
of the Ottoman Empire. Ironically, it goes back, I think, to Kosovo and 
a battle that was fought, I think, in 1555 or 1585 where Solyman ``the 
Great'' fought the Serbs in Kosovo. In fact, just a few years ago, the 
Serbs dug up their hero of that battle and took his body all around 
Serbia as an expression of support for that battle and for their hatred 
of the Moslem empire which had caused that fight to occur. And those 
hatreds have developed and evolved and have gone forward in every 
generation, been passed down from generation to generation to 
generation.
  We cannot understand it as Americans because we are a melting pot, 
and we do not have that type of hatred in our Nation. A lot of people 
came to the United States, however, to get away from it and immigrated 
here for that purpose.
  But I remember, I worked in Montenegro one summer, and I would meet 
people--and this was back a long time ago, back in 1970-something--and 
I would meet people, the local folks who I was working with, and they 
would tell me, forthrightly, that as soon as Tito died there was going 
to be a genocide in that part of the world because the Serbs hated 
the Croatians. And it was just a matter of fact, a matter of their 
lives that as soon as this stabilizing force, Tito, died, this was 
going to occur. They knew it as a culture.

  So what arrogance do we have as a nation, sitting here across the 
ocean, that we think we can project arms into a region, putting 
American lives at risk, and stabilize that region which has not been 
able to settle things out for hundreds of years--hundreds of years. I 
think it is foolish for us to presume that.
  But equally important, I think we have to understand that, in this 
instance, to put American forces in there is essentially an act of war 
on our part, because this is a freestanding nation and Kosovo is a 
province of that freestanding nation. It is as if Canada decided to put 
troops in Vermont because New Hampshire and Vermont were not getting 
along. That may be too glib a statement, but the fact is, from a 
physical standpoint and a political standpoint, that is essentially the 
same situation. This is a nation which is at civil war. What if the 
English during our Civil War had decided to set troops down in North 
Carolina? I don't think the North would have taken that very well.
  Granted, in this instance, the Serbs are led by a malicious and 
malignant individual who is acting in a manner which is outside, in 
many ways, the bounds of any type of confrontation that should occur in 
the 20th century or the 21st century. But the fact is, for us to put 
American troops in there will be legally, at least, an act of war 
because we will be invading a sovereign nation which is fighting within 
itself relative to a province in that nation which is trying to create 
independence, and we will be deciding to separate that country by our 
use of military force.
  Of course, this administration has not come to this Congress and 
suggested that. In fact, this administration has not come to the 
Congress at all. It has violated all sorts of directives, but it has 
just marched down

[[Page S2992]]

this road of arbitrary evolution into a position of confrontation in 
Serbia and Kosovo. It has set our prestige at risk without having any 
idea why our prestige should be at risk, in my opinion.
  But that is the second point: Can you resolve the conflict by the use 
of American force? I would have to say that history tells us we cannot. 
A lot like Haiti. When we went into Haiti, a lot of people asked, Are 
we going to correct this situation? Is this going to improve this 
situation? Are we putting our people at risk? Are we spending all this 
money and getting something out of this that is better after we leave? 
Is it going to change the culture?
  We have seen it did not. Haiti is back to almost the exact position 
it was before we put our troops in, except that it has absolutely no 
private enterprise now because we basically wiped out the private 
enterprise when we went in and closed all the private enterprise down 
and pushed it offshore. We wiped out their private sector workforce and 
capitalist base. So we actually put them in a worse position 
economically. And politically they are in the same position.
  I suspect that no matter how long we put American troops in there--
and there is no definition coming; and that is the third point of how 
long we will be there--no matter how long American troops are in that 
region, there will be no resolution of this problem by the introduction 
of American troops into that region which will have any long-term 
impact. They will be back at each other's throat as soon as the 
opportunity arises, unless we wish to stay there forever, which brings 
us to the third point.

  The first point is: Is there a vital national interest for us? The 
second point is: Can the conflict be resolved by the use of American 
forces? The third point: Is there an exit strategy or are we committing 
Americans' tax dollars and the lives of American troops without any--
any--idea as to how we are going to get out of this situation?
  As far as I know, this administration has not really defined an 
entrance strategy. They have sort of stumbled into that, so, clearly, 
they have not found any exit strategy. In fact, if you ask them, all 
they have thought about is the first bombing raids. They have not even 
thought about the second--they may have thought about the second series 
of bombing raids, but they have not thought about what they do after 
that. There is no exit strategy. In fact, there is very little strategy 
at all other than what the military has been willing to do and has to 
do in order to prepare itself to execute public policy which is so 
haphazardly designed.
  We could be there a long time. I mean, since 1385 or 1355, it has 
been 600 years. Are we going to stick around another 600 years in order 
to pacify this region? I think we might have to if our intention is to 
accomplish that goal.
  And for what purpose? What is the national interest that justifies 
that? And remember, this is not like Haiti in many ways. This is a 
country where people do fight, where people are under arms. This is a 
country of military-type individuals. This is a country which fought 
the German army to a standstill; the greatest army in the world at the 
time they invaded, fought them to a standstill through guerrilla 
tactics. These are proud people, proud people and militaristic people. 
I know that. I was there for awhile. It was a long time ago, but I do 
not think they have changed. They do not seem to change much.
  So where is this policy going? It appears that it is a policy that is 
undefined, that cannot give us a legitimate national reason, that 
cannot proclaim that the introduction of American forces will settle 
the situation. And it cannot give us a definition as to how they are 
going to get out of the situation once we get into the situation.
  It is a bad policy. It is one that, unfortunately, puts many American 
lives at risk if it is pursued. But this administration seems insistent 
on going down that road. And I think that is wrong.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________