THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, December 7, 1995 TAG: 9512070328
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY BILL SIZEMORE, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: Medium: 85 lines
If President Clinton hopes for a united home front backing his deployment of U.S. troops to police a Balkan peace agreement, he still has a big sales job ahead of him in Hampton Roads.
A place to start might be Francis Adams' international politics class at Old Dominion University.
In a spirited discussion of the Bosnia deployment Wednesday, a handful of supporters of the president's action were peppered with objections from fellow students. Their apprehensions about the mission ran the gamut:
It's dangerous.
Success is iffy.
No vital U.S. interest is at stake.
The purpose of the military is to fight wars, not enforce peace.
The depth of local concern was also apparent after a request for calls by The Virginian-Pilot. In a 12-hour period Wednesday, more than 400 readers flooded the newspaper's Infoline telephone service with their opinions. While the phone-in survey was not scientific, the responses were consistent with national polls that show a large majority of Americans against the use of U.S. troops in Bosnia.
A defender of the deployment in Adams' class, Mark Brown, argued that the bloody war in the former
Yugoslavia may not be a direct threat to the United States, but it is a threat to the stability of Europe. As a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, he said, the United States has a duty to stand alongside its allies.
``These troops are already over there - in Germany - to help protect the security of Europe,'' he said. ``Now they're just being moved over into Bosnia. What goes on there is definitely in the interest of Europe.''
His classmate, Josh Chaparro, agreed: ``The United States is the leading nation in the world. We have an obligation to take some kind of action.''
Many students, however, were unconvinced.
``What if, later on, war breaks out again?'' Niya Creekmore asked. ``I don't agree with it.''
Scott Hayne also was skeptical. ``I agree that the United States, as a leader in the world community, should show that it cares about what's going on over there,'' he said. ``But there's other ways to lead than sending 20,000 troops into the middle of a conflict that's been going on for centuries.''
Besides, there are higher priorities for the United States, said Joseph Fisher: ``We should be paying attention to our own problems. Those 20,000 troops could be used for something here at home, like the war on drugs. The United States is already overextended in the world.''
Kenisha Strand concurred: ``The costs outweigh the benefits.''
But what about the nation's treaty obligations? Brown protested.
``We belong to a security alliance,'' he said. ``If the United States was threatened, we wouldn't want Germany, France and England to say, `Well, that's not our problem.' This is an instance where they need our help, and we have to give our help because someday we may need their help.''
Hayne didn't buy the argument that, if NATO doesn't act, Europe could become engulfed in a larger war. ``I don't think it's going to spread to other countries,'' he said. ``It's a civil conflict.''
And it's a war that won't be solved by a U.S.-imposed settlement, added Fisher. ``We can't solve the problems of Bosnia in one year; we couldn't solve them in two years; we couldn't solve them in five years,'' he said.
Another defender of the president's policy, Arjuna Fields, argued that for the United States, the Bosnia conflict is a matter of destiny.
``Yes, it has been going on for centuries,'' he said. ``And now that we're at a juncture where we have an opportunity to really do something about it, we have to take that risk - not only from a moral standpoint but from a solidarity standpoint and from our position as the No. 1 power that we've been striving so long to be. We made our bed; now we have to lie in it.''
Maybe so, said Hayne, but it's a job for diplomats, not soldiers.
``The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things,'' he said. ``The military is there to protect us and to get the enemy. And in that place, there's no enemy that we're aware of. We're just saying, `OK, all you people, be nice to each other.' That's not the role of the military.'' ILLUSTRATION: VICKI CRONIS/The Virginian-Pilot
Francis Adams questions his class Wednesday about the wisdom of
sending 20,000 U.S. troops to enforce a peace agreement in Bosnia.
Adams teaches a class in international politics at Old Dominion
University.
KEYWORDS: BOSNIA by CNB