Clinton's repeated promise not to use ground troops may delay the struggle against Yugoslavia, critics say

April 8, 1999
Web posted at: 8:52 p.m. EDT (2052 GMT)

From Correspondent David Ensor

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- While public opinion polls show support so far for President Bill Clinton's actions against Yugoslavia, there is more criticism of his handling of the conflict than is usual in such circumstances.

Part of that may stem from the fact that Clinton has no military background; part of it may stem from the fact that NATO forces have so far failed to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. But the president's critics also say that he is putting too many limits on the military operation for political reasons.

"He doesn't want the cost to be high to America, and one can understand that we never want costs to be high to America," says George Edwards, director of presidential studies at Texas A&M University. "He doesn't want to pay a price, but that's what we hire presidents for, which is to lead, and sometimes they have to pay a price for leadership."

Clinton has said repeatedly that there will be no NATO ground forces used in Kosovo, except with the agreement of the Yugoslavs -- a position that some see as a tactical mistake.

"When you declare up front that you're not going to put ground troops in, you give a level of certainty into the mind of your opponents," says retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Larry Farrell, now a military analyst. "It allows him a number of options that he didn't have."

Clinton, his critics say, is merely putting off the inevitable.

"If he does not commit ground troops and does not win this war, he will have presided over the third genocide on his watch, after Bosnia and Rwanda. And he will have lost the war," says Jim Hooper of the Balkan Action Council.

Critics also voice alarm that White House officials were quoted as saying that certain bombing targets had to be personally approved by the president, which some saw as shades of Vietnam.

"I think what we've had is a political bombing and not a military bombing," says former Sen. Bob Dole.

Some critics also argue that the United States has put such a high premium on the goal of zero casualties that planes from other allies have sometimes been more effective against Yugoslav armor in Kosovo than have American planes.

"The British are prepared to tolerate a higher degree of risk. They're more aggressive in their attacking," says Hooper.

Some former senior military officials are also saying that, in many cases, military men and women would prefer to take greater risks of casualties if they felt that could make a difference.

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.