
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, October 25, 1995                   TAG: 9510250018
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-11   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

CLINTON QUICKSAND

WHERE HAVE we seen this scene before? The president and high-ranking officials of the administration tell members of Congress they want to send a relatively small number of American troops to a foreign land to help end a bloody war. Not to worry, though. While they won't be home by this Christmas, they will almost certainly be home by next Christmas. Relax, Bob Hope, your services won't be needed.

If Vietnam was quicksand that slowly sucked America in, Bosnia could easily be a black hole. Or, if the president's luck holds, it could be Haiti, which appears to have turned out far better than many, including myself, thought. But Haiti isn't Bosnia, and the dynamics and dangers are dramatically different.

For those with good memories, the arguments for and against involvement in Bosnia would be amusing and great material for debates if American lives were not at stake. Many Democrats who argued that U.S. lives should not be sacrificed in foreign adventures without specific authorization from Congress now either won't publicly disagree with a Democratic president, or do so with some caution. But Republicans have a problem, too. Many of them who argued in favor of the foreign policies of Richard Nixon (Vietnam), Ronald Reagan (Central America) and George Bush (the Persian Gulf) now find themselves on the side some of their Democratic colleagues were on in those other conflicts.

Elliott Abrams, assistant secretary of state for Latin America during the height of the fight with Congress over whether to oppose communists in Nicaragua and El Salvador, tells me he is ``torn'' over President Clinton's decision to send 20,000 American troops as part of a NATO force. Of the president's assertion that to do nothing would weaken NATO, Abrams says, ``failure in Bosnia would weaken NATO more and there are many ways to define failure.''

Abrams worries that, unlike Presidents Bush and Reagan, who were able to build at least some support for their foreign policies, ``President Clinton has no support in the U.S. population [for Bosnia].'' He is especially concerned that ``the lines of command and responsibility are not clear in Bosnia'' and warns that American forces must be under U.S. and NATO commanders and not take orders or have policy made by the United Nations.

Oliver North, the central figure in what came to be known as Iran-Contra, goes further than Abrams. North charges that President Clinton is sending troops to Bosnia for ``political purposes. [Defense] Secretary ([William] Perry's statement that this is worth American lives is totally wrongheaded.''

North is particularly incensed over suggestions that we must help our European allies with a conflict in their ``back yard.'' ``These allies shipped munitions to North Vietnam that were used against me and my buddies and these so-called allies did nothing but criticize us when we tried to isolate Cuba. Neither did they back freedom over communist insurgents in Central America.''

There are much larger political considerations than politics.

First, why are we prepared to send troops when there is no official peace agreement? The cease-fire is shaky at best and, in fact, fighting has not ceased in some areas. The general ``guidelines'' for a peace settlement are so nonspecific that the first step is the easiest. The details will be difficult and the odds favor failure. So the debate over a settlement and the face-off with Congress is premature.

Of even larger concern should be the entry of Russian troops, who will be on the side of the Serbs and, by their choice, not under NATO command. This could place U.S. troops in direct confrontation with Russian troops, which immensely raises the stakes in this worrisome situation.

If Clinton officials bring this off, they will deserve much credit. But the odds of it happening are between poor and impossible. because this adventure is more one of peace enforcement than of peacekeeping. Over all of it looms the figure of Bill Clinton, who avoided service in Vietnam, hated the military, protested that war and now is in a position to put other people's sons and daughters in harm's way.

- Los Angeles Times Syndicate

by CNB