President Clinton’s decision to send troops to Bosnia as peace keepers is wrong for two significant reasons:1) he is making a leadership error by not marshaling what Clausewitz called the moral element, a strategic mistake also made prior to the Korean and Vietnam conflicts; and 2) he is making a logical error about America’s strategic role in Bosnia, confusing limited warfare and international police action, with special warfare.

Moral element:Strategic theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, wrote that the moral element must also be considered when marshaling our forces against a strategic enemy. The moral element he referred to is the national will; in this case, the will of the American people. Col. Harry G. Summers, an Army War College Distinguished Fellow,and a decorated veteran of both the Korean and Vietnam wars, writes The failure to invoke the national will was one of the major strategic failures of the Vietnam war. During the Vietnam conflict, Robert McNamara reportedly stated that The greatest contribution Vietnam is making right or wrong is beside the point is that it is developing an ability in the United States to fight a limited war, to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire. House National Security Committee Chairman, Floyd D. Spence, stated his concern about American involvement this way:We must weigh American security interests as well as American moral interests, and this is where the president has a lot of convincing to do.

President Clinton may be repeating mistakes made by presidents before him if he does not provide a clear rationale for sending our people into the war zone of Bosnia. Floyd Spence also stated in the Washington Post that Leadership without direction is dangerous and a recipe for disaster when it involves deployment of tens of thousands of American combat troops. The people of America must be convinced that the cost of direct involvement in Bosnia is worth it:Are we willing to lose our brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts in some other country’s civil war?

Advertisement

What has been Clinton’s argument thus far? NATO is present in Bosnia to keep peace; in other words, to police the area. The images we see on nightly news are of the success (or failure) of the United Nations peacekeeping forces. Clinton now states that If we are not there, NATO will not be there… The peace will collapse. The war will re-ignite. The slaughter of innocents will begin again. Is this a convincing argument? That is our responsibility as Americans says Clinton.

America needs to know the answer to these questions:how is the Bosnian civil war a threat to our national security (a legitimate strategic interest)? How are the American people obligated morally to choose peace for other nations? Clinton’s rationale fails to answer either of these fundamental questions.

Limited warfare:The second area of error concerns the military matter of using national defense forces in what Clinton calls a clear and limited mission. We have already established that the U.N. forces in Bosnia are peace keeping, police forces.

The nature of a police force, like the police force which patrols your own neighborhood, is a presiding one, where a constant presence helps ensure the lawful conduct of those in that neighborhood. A police force must remain for extended periods of time. Special forces, on the other hand, are intended for truly limited actions:much like SWAT or SOG (Special Forces Group) teams used in our cities and towns.

They come in for a specific purpose, meet tactical and strategic objectives (i.e. achieve victory in that limited confrontation), and then go back home. Entering our ground forces in some tentative, unfocused campaign will NOT lead to limited participation, but a prolonged presence.

The army general and military strategist, Sun Tzu, wrote that There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited… What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations. The apparent confusion in President Clinton’s role for conventional defense forces may prove to be a serious error in judgment. Napoleon Bonaparte addressed this point:War is a simple art:its essence lies in its accomplishment. Police do not accomplish victory in tactical engagements; warriors do. Clinton claims that we will meet all resistance with force and then some. This is not a description of police action; it describes full, tactical engagement, army to army… in the middle of a civil war! The following concern, raised by a U.S. senator during the 1960s is haunting.

I understand that it is our policy to have a victory in Korea; it’s our policy to have peace in Korea. (It is) what we expect to do to accomplish it that bewilders me. -Senator Bourke K. Hickenlooper (Iowa), 82nd Congress, 1st session.

Advertisement*

grad. student in speech communications