Clinton Says U.S. Values Require Troops for Bosnia : Balkans: We ‘cannot be the world’s policeman,’ he declares, ‘but we can stop some wars.’ Republican response is measured as President seeks to rally leery nation.

President Clinton sought to rally a leery nation Monday behind his pledge to commit 20,000 troops to defend a brittle peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina, asserting that America’s values and interests “require that we do so.”

In a solemn Oval Office address, the President said that leading an international peacekeeping force in the bloody Balkans is the United States’ moral burden and geopolitical duty.

But even with those imperatives, Clinton acknowledged the limits of U.S. power at the end of a century that saw the nation rise to unparalleled global preeminence.

“America cannot and must not be the world’s policeman,” he said from behind his massive oak desk. “We cannot stop all war for all time, but we can stop some wars. We cannot save all women and all children, but we can save many of them. We cannot do everything, but we must do what we can.”

Reaction from Capitol Hill was measured, in part because Republicans have long argued for freedom of presidential action in international affairs.

Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) said it is important that the United States speak with one voice on foreign policy.

“I want to find a way, if it’s possible, to support the President,” Dole said after the speech. The leading Republican presidential candidate said he believes in the constitutional authority of the President and added, “No doubt about it, whether Congress agrees or not, troops will go to Bosnia.”

House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said, “I think people are skeptical, but I think they are willing to listen.”

Dole, Gingrich and other congressional leaders are scheduled to discuss the issue with the President at the White House today.

In his 20-minute prime-time address, Clinton declared that the reliability of America’s word is on the line. Having promised three years ago that the United States would contribute forces to monitor a peace accord in the Balkans, the nation is now obliged to follow through on the agreement initialed in Dayton, Ohio, last week, the President insisted.

“There are times and places where our leadership can mean the difference between peace and war and where we can defend our fundamental values as a people and serve our most basic strategic interests,” he declared.

“If we’re not there, NATO will not be there,” Clinton said. “The peace will collapse. The war will reignite. The slaughter of innocents will begin again.”

Although he did not say it, it was clear that his own credibility is at stake as well. His stature as a world leader has been called into question at home and abroad, and repudiation of the Bosnia peace deal he helped broker would be a devastating blow to his international prestige.

Clinton cited recent U.S. military interventions generally deemed successes--Haiti, the Persian Gulf War--while recalling the atrocities of World War II to justify a military operation in Bosnia.

“For nearly four years, a terrible war has torn Bosnia apart. Horrors that we prayed had been banished from Europe forever have been seared into our minds again--skeletal prisoners caged behind barbed-wire fences, women and girls raped as a tool of war, defenseless men and boys shot down into mass graves--evoking visions of World War II concentration camps and endless lines of refugees marching toward a future of despair,” Clinton said.

But many in Congress were not swayed. Some of the sharpest criticism Monday came from Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), also a presidential hopeful. But he too acknowledged that Clinton probably has the authority to dispatch the troops.

“I have always tried to give the President the benefit of the doubt on foreign policy issues, but even allowing for the fullest possible benefit of the doubt, I cannot support sending troops to Bosnia,” he said.

“I intend to do everything in my power to give the troops going to Bosnia every ounce of support needed to make their deployment short, safe and successful. But I believe they are being sent to enforce an unenforceable treaty, and I fear that when they are ultimately withdrawn, we will have lost some heroes and there will be no peace for Bosnia,” he said.

Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) said Clinton made “an essentially circular argument: ‘I have made this commitment; therefore our failure to live up to it will bring our leadership into question.’ ”

He said Clinton had assumed a disproportionate share of the peacekeeping burden. And he said Congress will be reluctant to fund the $1.5-billion estimated cost of the one-year mission.

Clinton took pains to prepare the public for casualties, which are considered inevitable when 60,000 heavily armed foreign troops are put between Bosnian government, Serbian and Croatian armies with their history of centuries of enmity and years of horrifying war.

“In Bosnia, we can succeed because the mission is clear and limited,” Clinton said. “Our troops are strong and very well-prepared, but no deployment of American troops is risk-free, and this one may well involve casualties.”

He said he bears ultimate responsibility for the safety of young Americans being sent into harm’s way. But he warned: “America protects its own. Anyone--anyone--who takes on our troops will suffer the consequences. We will fight fire with fire, and then some.”

He reassured the public--particularly those whose loved ones will be on the front lines--that the troops will not be sent on an ill-defined U.N. exercise but rather on a 12-month assignment that serves definable U.S. interests.

Although Clinton said the United States will send 20,000 troops, Pentagon planners have envisioned that as many as 23,000 will be needed.

“Our mission will be limited, focused and under the command of an American general,” the President said. “In fulfilling this mission, we will have a chance to help stop the killing of innocent civilians, and especially children, and at the same time bring stability to Central Europe, a region of the world that is vital to our national interests.”

Even as Clinton spoke, the Pentagon was positioning the vanguard of the U.S. peacekeeping contingent for rapid deployment to the Balkans. An advance party of several hundred U.S. troops in Germany is preparing to leave for Bosnia within days to begin putting in place the logistics framework for the larger international mission, which will be led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Clinton said Monday that he will seek a resolution of support from Congress for the operation, but he has made it clear that he intends to go ahead with the deployment regardless of congressional action.

But as a measure of the importance the Administration puts on winning congressional backing, Secretary of State Warren Christopher canceled plans to travel to Europe with Clinton this week in order to testify before Congress on the Bosnia mission.

Clinton leaves for Britain, Ireland, Germany and Spain today to discuss the Bosnia peace plan with European leaders and to visit the U.S. troops in Germany who will be part of the peacekeeping force.

He is expected to travel to Paris next month for the formal signing of the peace treaty.

The House and the Senate have both approved non-binding resolutions directing the President to seek congressional approval before sending U.S. troops to Bosnia.

The House went further 11 days ago, voting 243 to 171 to prevent federal funds from being spent to deploy U.S. peacekeeping troops in the former Yugoslav federation. The Senate has not yet scheduled a vote on that measure.

Both the Senate and House are scheduled to hold hearings this week on the deployment. Dole predicted that the Senate ultimately will endorse the mission. Changing the vote in the House presents a tougher challenge.

“I’m very confident we have the support to say no,” said Rep. Mark W. Neumann (R-Wis.), one of a group of GOP freshmen strongly opposed to the Bosnia operation.

“We are setting ourselves up for large numbers of casualties,” he said, adding that his constituents “clearly don’t see how U.S. interests are at risk.”

Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) endorsed Clinton and urged his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to display a united front.

“The President is showing the leadership that the world expects from the United States. He deserves bipartisan support for this task,” Simon said. “If we don’t make this effort to restore stability, the war in Bosnia will spread and will represent a long-term security threat to our national interests.”

While recent opinion polls indicate that the public is skeptical about sending U.S. troops to Bosnia, Clinton clearly has an opportunity to swing support behind the deployment.

A Gallup Poll taken earlier this month showed the public almost evenly split--47% to 49%--between those who favor and those who oppose sending U.S. forces as part of an international contingent.

But 58% expressed the belief that Clinton had not adequately explained the rationale for a U.S. military presence in the Balkans, and 79% said that the President should get Congress’ approval before dispatching troops.

The results indicated that if Clinton continues his campaign of public persuasion and prevails in the coming congressional debate, he probably will reap public support for the Bosnia mission--at least temporarily.

The same poll showed sharply declining support for the deployment at increasing casualty levels--67% would back the mission if assured of no deaths, but the number would decline radically if the death toll mounted. At 25 hypothetical battlefield deaths, only 31% would support the Bosnia deployment; at 400 fatalities, support would drop to 21%.

Times staff writer Art Pine contributed to this story.