The U.S. stand on Bosnia

President Clinton was right to resist earlier pressures to commit U.S. forces either to repel the Serbian aggressors or to serve as neutral peacekeepers. But he is now right to agree in principle to send substantial numbers of American troops should NATO be called upon to cover the withdrawal of UN forces.

First, however, Clinton must get congressional approval; and Congress has an obligation to define strict time limits for any U.S. involvement and to insist on force levels that provide maximum protection to American and allied troops.

The UN has not yet decided to withdraw its soldiers, nor is any nation about to withdraw unilaterally. The Clinton administration hoped its troop offer would encourage those countries that have been publicly contemplating withdrawal, chiefly France, to stick it out a little longer. The initial French reaction suggests that Washington has succeeded on that score.

But in truth, the UN presence has been a mixed blessing, hemmed in by its mandate of scrupulous neutrality. Recently the lightly armed UN forces have not even been able to protect themselves. In past weeks Serbian units have taken 300 of the blue helmets hostage, to use as pawns.

Under these circumstances, the United Nations and several countries with troops on the ground have asked NATO to draw up plans to provide military cover for their withdrawal. NATO, which acts only by consensus, could decline. But the majority of the 23,000 UN troops at risk come from France, Britain and seven other NATO countries.

For the U.S. to veto or stand aside from a NATO relief operation could inflict a mortal blow to the troubled alliance, still a key element of U.S. global security strategy. At the heart of NATO is a U.S. commitment to defend its European Allies. Moreover, abandoning the surrounded troops would cripple the UN's ability to deploy troops in situations where the U.S. might otherwise have to be involved.

Bosnia's warring armies say they would not harass withdrawing UN troops. But the Bosnian Serbs' promise is unreliable. Serbian troops surround UN forces in many areas and withdrawal could be a difficult operation. Before Clinton commits U.S. troops to such a risky mission, the Constitution and political sense oblige him to secure congressional support.

Republicans will reasonably insist that a withdrawal operation be under direct NATO command, unlike recent bombing operations that were under joint UN- NATO control. They would also do well to hold the administration to its word that any NATO intervention will employ overwhelming military force to deter potential problems from any Bosnian faction.

Since the U.S. is prepared to supply as many as 25,000 troops out of a NATO total of 50,000, Washington will have a chance to influence strategic planning. Bosnia's tragedy has brought no glory to anyone. But it need not end in the further disaster of UN military catastrophe and the breakdown of NATO if Clinton and Congress plan together.

-- The New York Times