‘Neutrality’ Won’t Protect Our Troops

By Richard N. Perle
The New York Times , December 7, 1995

Richard N. Perle, a fellow at the American
Enterprise Institute, was an Assistant Secretary of
Defense in the Reagan Administration. He advised the
Bosnian delegation at the Balkan peace talks.

WASHINGTON

The Bosnian Government signed away half its country
last month — but only after receiving oral assurances
that the United States would provide it with the military
equipment and training it desperately needs to provide
for its own defense. Now it is becoming clear why the
Clinton Administration was reluctant to give its
assurances in writing: It has no intention of arming the
Bosnians.

Instead of immediately beginning to arm and train the
Bosnians so that American forces can be honorably
withdrawn in a year, the Administration is blundering
toward an ill-defined, unworkable scheme to subcontract
this job to other countries.

Since our allies — Britain, France, Germany and most
other NATO countries — opposed arming the Bosnians, we
will likely end up with an unseemly and protracted
scavenger hunt. Bosnia will be forced to settle for
inferior equipment and inadequate training.

American personnel and equipment, especially antitank
missiles, counter-battery radars, artillery, tanks,
armored personnel carriers and air-defense systems, are
the best. The alternatives — Russian and Chinese arms —
are decidedly inferior, lack adequate spare parts and
would require instructors from countries where such
equipment is common.

Why is the Administration so reluctant, so diffident?
In part because our allies flatly oppose arming the
Bosnians. Moreover, senior White House officials hold out
the vain hope that the so-called arms control provisions
of the Dayton accord will obviate the need for an
effective Bosnian army.

But that agreement is gossamer, even by the low
standards of international arms control. It simply
enjoins the parties to reach a comprehensive agreement in
an unrealistic six months. If this fails, it sets
arbitrary limits, but has no inspection provision and no
means of enforcement. It relies on the good behavior of
indicted and likely-to-be indicted war criminals who
control Serbia and the Serb entity in Bosnia. No American
official would ever agree to any such arms control regime
if American security were at stake.

Sadly, Pentagon officials are the driving force
behind the Administration’s opposition to arming the
Bosnians. They evidently believe that our troops will be
less vulnerable to discontented Serbs if we feign
neutrality.

The idea that our forces in Bosnia could or should
try to wrap themselves in a cloak of neutrality is simply
wrong. That is a political judgment, and the military men
who make it are intruding on the role of our elected
leaders, who are, alas, all too willing to acquiesce.
Seeking protection in neutrality was a great mistake
underlying the tragic loss of 241 marines in Lebanon in
1983. Because the Marines allowed themselves the illusion
that they were neutral peacekeepers, they failed to take
adequate precautions against attack.

We will be far safer in Bosnia if we assume that we
are likely to become targets and behave accordingly,
rather than hiding behind a political fiction and merely
encouraging others to train and arm the Bosnians while we
distance ourselves in public. Those who would attack our
troops will not be deterred or impressed by our resorting
to surrogates for training the Bosnians. They are not
subtle and they are not fools.

Senator Bob Dole is trying to fashion legislation
that would compel the Administration to arm and train the
Bosnians. He is right to do so. Our goal must be to help
secure the survival of a multi-ethnic, independent Bosnia
at peace with its neighbors. “Peace” that is
merely a way station to the eventual destruction of
Bosnia cannot justify even the safe presence of
Americans, let alone their deployment in the face of
great danger.