COLUMN: In the National Interest

From Peter Morrison's "Think for Yourself," Fall '95 From Peter Morrison's "Think for Yourself," Fall '95In a nationally televised speech Monday night, President Clinton announced his intention to send 20,000 U.S. troops to Bosnia in order to implement and uphold a peace accord reached by the warring factions at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. The decision to place American lives in danger is never an easy one, but the deployment of troops to the battle-weary region demonstrates the United States' willingness to accept its leadership position in the international community, support its Western European allies and help end the torture and bloodshed that has characterized Bosnia during its conflict. At this juncture in the conflict, President Clinton has made the right move and has played a significant role in ending a three-and-a-half year civil war. Clinton's most prudent action in this entire episode has been not to act unilaterally. He believes, as do I, that if international norms are violated during violent military conflict, as in Bosnia, then the international community, or at least a coalition within that community, must act in coordination in order to achieve the greatest success with the greatest credibility. Throughout the Bosnian War, it has been the United Nations or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that has taken action, not the United States alone, to help end massive bloodshed and the most cruel and violent crimes. That being said, the United States must be part of any coalition to bring about peace. The United States is the only remaining superpower and the leader of the free world. Like it or not, it is the United States that provides credibility and strength to what little international governance the world has. When NATO or the UN takes action, it is the United States as part of these organizations that others fear. It is the United States that provides a framework within which international regimes can survive. Without American support, these international organizations would have little or no credibility. Here lies the long sought after national interest: The credibility of NATO and the UN is at stake. When the war broke out in Bosnia, France and England decided to send peacekeeping troops to establish safe zones for innocent civilians and those who could not defend themselves. These nations, close allies of the United States, asked for assistance to end the war crimes that were being committed as part of the "ethnic cleansing" occurring in the Balkan region. Clinton, at the time, attempted to form a coalition of nations to remove peacekeeping troops from the region, lift the arms embargo on Bosnia, and let all sides in the conflict defend themselves. This strategy would have allowed the western nations to clean their hands of the conflict, but it would have also led to tremendous bloodshed and vicious cruelty spurred by the profound hatred the Bosnian Serbs and Muslims have of each other's religions and cultures. France and England would not agree to lift the arms embargo while their troops were still in the region, so this policy -- favored by the GOP -- failed. As an alternative, Clinton moved forward with a policy of intense diplomacy, coaxing all sides to the bargaining table. Following a quickly resolved hostage controversy, a NATO bombing campaign to protect the safe zones and Croatia's entry into the war to push back the Bosnian Serbs, the warring parties came to Dayton to work out a peace accord. With the accord signed, it must now be implemented. After all the posturing and diplomatic measures, not to mention the loss of life, should the Americans now abandon the peace initiative, just when it has the greatest chance to bring about peace in the region? Maybe the United States was unwillingly drawn into this controversy by its allies, and maybe the UN and NATO shouldn't depend on the United States for credibility, but those are the facts. And now the United States by sending 20,000 troops to the region has the unique opportunity to end a three- and-a-half year war. Do not forget the atrocities that occurred during this conflict either. "One quarter of a million men, women and children have been shelled, shot and tortured to death. Two million people, half of Bosnia's population, were forced from their homes and into a miserable life as refugees," Clinton said in his speech. Political rhetoric for his speech? Maybe so. But those are also facts. Anyone who has read first-hand accounts of the travesties that have occurred in Bosnia would be absolutely sick. Little babies executed, young women raped by soldiers, soldiers unmercifully tortured. The Pentagon has already stated the mission has a high probability for success with low casualties. The U.S. force will be strong -- 20,000 men -- and will operate under a U.S. general. The timetable for their return is clear -- one year (in case anyone wants to make a Vietnam reference). Clinton has issued a strong deterrent message to the various Balkan parties. "America protects its own. Anyone who takes on our troops will suffer the consequences. We fight fire with fire, and then some." The leaders of the various factions have also already told Clinton that they will not attack any American troops. This strategy meets every condition that the American military command insisted on for a successful mission. I agree that America cannot be the policeman for the entire world. That should be left to NATO and the UN, which Clinton has done. But it takes U.S. support for these groups to be successful.