Bosnian trap - Bill Clinton's plan to offer 30,000 US troops to uphold peace plan in Bosnia-Herzegovina - Editorial

National Review, Sept 20, 1993

It is a maxim of international politics that a timid course usually ends up being the most dangerous. That is about to be proved in Bosnia. Because this Administration shrank from arming the Bosnians and giving them air support against Serbian aggression, it is about to place American ground troops in harm's way to uphold an unjust settlement fostered by its very timidity.

The Clinton Administration came into office talking big, but soon proved woefully inept. In February, the Administration was claiming with bravado that the Vance-Owen plan needed improvement because it didn't roll back Serb military gains enough. Now, it colludes in diplomatic efforts to ratify the Serb-dominated status quo - and this after seven months of further Serb aggression. On February 10, Warren Christopher threatened economic sanctions and the "fall weight of American diplomacy" (wow!) to bring about a just settlement. He also promised that U.S. armed forces would be available to help police a settlement when one had been reached. Since Mr. Christopher was simultaneously abdicating any serious U.S. role in helping shape a settlement, or at least a decent one, this pledge seemed like a rhetorical flourish for an unlikely hypothetical situation. Now the bill is being presented.

Since the world community has done little or nothing to help Bosnian Muslims to resist aggression, and since it continues to deny them the wherewithal to defend themselves, Serb (and now Croat) encroachment inexorably shrinks the Bosnian rump state. Perhaps some enclaves will be spared, as President Clinton periodically gathers up the courage to threaten air action, for example, to protect Sarajevo. But the threats lose force in the repetition. It is increasingly clear that the President has no real desire to implement them, in the face of objection from European allies who want a quick Bosnian surrender to get it all over with. The impression spreads that his shows of toughness are a cover for collusion in the Munich-style pressure on the Bosnians. The Bosnians are courageously resisting surrender, but a terrible reality may leave them with no alternative.

At such a moment, the Clinton Administration reiterates its February 10 pledge to join in enforcing a settlement. Where the original pledge was in the context of a hypothetically fair compromise, its reiteration now is in the context of something much uglier. We are graciously offering up to 30,000 U.S. ground troops to enforce whatever surrender arrangement the Bosnians can be bludgeoned into signing. Even if such a patently unjust deal were struck, how long could it last? Does the United States really want its ground troops defending an unjust status quo against the Muslim resistance that will inevitably arise? Do we really want to be the Serbs' enforcers? That would be the worst of all outcomes.

The hour is late. But there is still time for an alternative policy - one that arms the Bosnians and gives them at least a chance to defend themselves and to restore the balance of forces on the ground. We might then get a more balanced and durable agreement - one that would not require an American military presence to survive.