THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 21, 1996 TAG: 9601190702
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY BILL SIZEMORE, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 126 lines
President Clinton's dispatching of U.S. troops to help police a peace agreement in the former Yugoslavia has provoked a spirited debate about the United States' role in the confusing post-Cold War world.
What does it mean to be the world's last superpower? What responsibilities does that role entail? And when should military force be used to carry it out?
When readers of The Virginian-Pilot responded to a request for discussion of those questions, they reflected the same deep division that has characterized the Bosnia debate in Washington and across the country.
At the heart of the debate is a fundamental disagreement over one central question:
How should ``vital U.S. interests'' be defined?
Those who would define them narrowly, who seem to be in the majority, think the nation should steer clear of foreign entanglements except when its own security is directly threatened.
Those who would define them more broadly think the United States' pre-eminent position in today's world carries some degree of moral responsibility for what goes on beyond our borders.
Both sides argue their cases passionately, each using their own reading of historical precedents. And there is little common ground between them.
Let's look out for ourselves first.
That's the view of Tom Filkins of Manns Harbor, N.C., who draws on 37 years of federal service, the bulk of it in the intelligence/counterintelligence community.
``Being a leader does not necessarily mean being the world's policeman,'' Filkins writes. ``There have always been conflicts in the world. The most dangerous of these and the most difficult to resolve are those based on ethnic or religious differences. Placing our troops in the middle of such a dispute, especially without a clear mission statement, is just plain foolhardy.
``While Mr. Clinton asserts that he has authorized our troops to use deadly force to defend themselves, history offers a valuable lesson. Perhaps the most ruthless foreign force ever to attempt to control the Balkan peoples was Hitler's anti-partisan forces in World War II. The partisan forces kept the Third Reich at bay for the duration of their occupation.
``It is logical to assume that the various factions involved today would be able to do the same or worse to a force of `peacekeepers' who could not afford to mount a truly robust military reprisal without being accused of partisanship at best or genocide at worst.
``No, we must judiciously pick and choose which world hot spot deserves our attention and would be worth the shedding of American blood. The Balkans do not fit those parameters in any way.''
Is ``peacekeeping'' ever an appropriate role for a military force? Filkins doesn't reject the concept completely, but he lays down some stringent qualifications.
``To be viewed as a true peacekeeper, a nation must first be viewed by all sides of a conflict as truly impartial,'' he writes. ``In the current mess, Mr. Clinton claims impartiality and in the next breath he says he will arm and train one of the belligerents. What sort of fool would believe that the Serbs would consider this state of affairs to be to their benefit?
``A second qualification is that it must be clearly in America's interest to commit troops as peacekeepers. Mr. Clinton's assertion that his actions are being taken in our national interest does not provide one iota of proof of such national interests.''
Fred Edwards of Virginia Beach reiterates that point.
``The proper role of the U.S. is to safeguard continuing U.S. interests,'' Edwards writes. ``We do not have permanent friends or permanent enemies. We have only continuing interests.
``Sound familiar? It is a quote from Prime Minister Disraeli. He said it 150 years ago when Britain ruled two-thirds of the earth. Britain forgot that lesson to her everlasting regret. If the United States ignores the wisdom of it today, we do so at our peril.''
Edwards asks: ``Where are our continuing interests in Bosnia?'' He can find none.
Moreover, he takes issue with the argument that the United States would have lost international respect if it had not sent troops to the Balkans.
``A handful of them are going to get killed in some spectacular manner and there is going to be a public outcry such as we haven't heard since Somalia,'' he writes. ``When that happens, our brave leaders in Congress and elsewhere in Washington are going to be falling all over each other trying to get out from under. Talk to us then about international respect.''
What, then, is our military for?
The Soviet Union has collapsed; the Cold War is over. If U.S. military power is not to be used in places like Bosnia, why are we spending hundreds of billions each year to maintain the biggest military machine the world has ever known? Is it not reasonable to scale it down?
``Probably,'' Edwards replies. ``But the question you should be asking is if we can live without major cutbacks across the board in our national spending. The answer to that question seems, to me at least, pretty obvious.''
We must look beyond our borders.
That minority view comes from John H. Robertson of Chesapeake. He describes the proper U.S. role as ``working through the United Nations to address common problems, even if it means giving up some independence in world affairs; safeguarding peace and human rights; and working with those countries who try to live in peace with their neighbors, and are working to expand and protect the human rights of all their citizens, even though their governments may not be `democratic' as we know it.''
``Protecting American interests is very important,'' Robertson concedes. ``However, when we reach a point where we think our interests are so vital that we can continuously overlook human rights violations, we should closely re-examine what we see as `our interests.' And we should put the violators on notice that we will not continue `friendly relations' indefinitely, if they continue their violations.
``Yes, `peacekeeping' is a proper role for a military force: 20,000 `peacekeepers' is a lot better than 200,000 troops fighting a war - even in the event of loss of life of some `peacekeepers.' What would you call the troops which remained in Japan and Germany after the `peace' was signed? They certainly prevented chaos - which is what the Balkans are headed for.
``Yes, I would risk my life, or that of a loved one, if those whom we elected said it was necessary. . . .
``If we had challenged Hitler when he invaded the Ruhr, or Poland, or Czechoslovakia, would we have faced World War II as we know it? If we had challenged the Japanese when they invaded Manchuria or bombed the Panay, would we have had Pearl Harbor?
``We cannot sit idly by while some misguided brute attacks a neighbor - anywhere! To paraphrase Martin Niemoeller, `Sooner or later they will come for me, and who will help me?' ''
``Like it or not, we are our brother's keeper.''
KEYWORDS: COMMUNITY CONVERSATION OPERATION JOINT ENDEAVOR
BOSNIA by CNB