November 26, 1995
Web posted at: 10:10 p.m. EST (0310 GMT)
Guests: Madeleine Albright, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Senator Daniel Coats, R-Indiana; Senator Charles Robb, D-Virginia; and Lieutenant General Marvin Covault former Chief of Staff of NATO forces European Southern Command.
FRANK SESNO, CNN: Tomorrow night President Clinton will try to win the support of the American public for a U.S. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. How tough a sales job will it be? We'll talk to a member of the President's cabinet and preview the Congressional debate with two Senators -- on opposing sides. Straight ahead, on LATE EDITION.
It's Sunday, November 26, 1995. Welcome to LATE EDITION where we talk to people at the top of the news and take your phone calls. Today Bosnia, the Dayton talks are over, and all sides have agreed to peace. But will there really be an end to bloodshed, or could U.S. and NATO troops be caught in the cross-fire?
Q and A today with U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright. Then, the debate in Congress -- we'll hear from two members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican Senator Dan Coats, and Democratic Senator, Charles Robb of Virginia.
Then the politics of Bosnia and the budget. Will these two issues decide the 1996 campaign. We'll go round the table with our panel of veteran Washington journalists.
And finally, are unspeakably violent acts the result of America's moral decay? Bruce Morton has the last word. But first, for a look at the hours' top stories we go to Jeane Meserve at the news desk. (NEWS BREAK)
SESNO: Well, joining us now here in our studio in Washington, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright, a member of President Clinton's cabinet and national security team.
Madam Ambassador, thanks very much for coming in.
ALBRIGHT: Glad to be with you, Frank.
SESNO: You heard Christiane (Amanpour) speaking there about the remnants of defiance in the Sarajevo area and the comments coming from Dr. Karadzic that perhaps this thing needs to be renegotiated so that Sarajevo is not handed over as a unified city, so there's not defeat, in the Serb view. What are the prospects of that?
ALBRIGHT: There's no prospect. What we have is an agreement that was initialed in Dayton, and then the leaders are going to get together in Paris to sign it. There will be no renegotiation, and I think the important part here, Frank, is for people to realize that this is a really historic moment.
That we have been looking at the war in Bosnia for almost four years, and as a result of a very courageous decision on the part of President Clinton this summer to really do something about all this and to take over a lot of the diplomatic action, we are in a moment which is decisive, and when the President speaks on Monday, I think that the American people will understand the importance of this for the United States.
SESNO: I want to talk to you about the President's speech in just a moment. But you say that it is a moment -- it may be a moment fraught with some peril, too, and let's go back to Dr. Karadzic for just a moment -- the Bosnian Serb leader, whom Christiane was referring to.
He gave an interview earlier today on the BBC, and he sent something of a chilling signal when he talked about what might lie ahead in Sarajevo and beyond for NATO and U.S. troops. Here's the tape. Take a look.
KARADZIC (ON VIDEOTAPE): What is wrong with the solution for Sarajevo is that Dayton agreement has created a new Beirut in Europe. It is going to bleed for decades. It is going to be very bad, maybe the worst place in Europe because now this is divided city.
SESNO: Maybe the worst place in Europe, a new Beirut in Europe?
ALBRIGHT: I think that he is trying to state the case for continuing all this when the truth of the matter is that he, or President Milosevic on his behalf, initialed an agreement that is bringing peace.
And we should hope and are going to do everything we can to make sure that a peace is there. Sarajevo is key. Sarajevo has been, according to the Dayton agreements, is a unified city. It is what the parties agreed to, and while there may be some last minute kind of saying this is not what we agree with, the truth is that this is the best solution for Sarajevo, and the possibility of people living together for Karadzic to make kind of statements like this, I think, is counterproductive.
SESNO: Well, it may be counterproductive, but doesn't it, to some extent, reflect reality. Like Beirut, there has been a violent civil war that is maybe very difficult to suppress. Like Beirut, when -- and certainly the U.S. Marine barracks bombing is something that tragically resonates in our memories -- there may well be peril as there is leftover hostility for an agreement imposed, even though signed to, by some of the warring -- many, all of the warring parties, really.
SESNO: But, there are pockets of resistance that could blow up in our face.
ALBRIGHT: Now but we expect that there will be pockets of resistance which is why...
SESNO: Casualties.
ALBRIGHT: ...the force that is going in is so overwhelmingly strong. I think people obviously -- we in the United States learn lessons. And the way that the troops are going in to Bosnia is going to be very different from any other example of when American forces have been used.
First of all, this is not a war situation. It's a peace situation. The parties have agreed. Even Dr. Karadzic has initialed this agreement. And also what is very important is that the troops themselves are going to be able to be very strong and decisive, so that if there is any kind of action out there -- any rogue elements -- they're going to get whacked.
It's as simple as that. This is overwhelming American and NATO force going in.
SESNO: There is a question of the casualties, though, and whether the American public has the stomach for casualties.
ALBRIGHT: Well, the American public, I think, needs to know what is happening here -- why this is so important. And the United States is a very special country, Frank, and a lot of the military that are going there are the sons and daughters of people who came from Europe to the United States because we are such a very special country and stand for morality and stand for a beacon of freedom and democracy.
And I think that what is important here is obviously there will be some casualties. Secretary Perry, however, has said everything has been done to keep those at a minimal rate. And as I said, the troops that are going to go in there will be heavily armed, and they will be able to have a decisive use of force. And we think that it's important for the United States to show this kind of leadership -- to get in there because we have a strategic interest and a moral interest.
I think the American people, once they hear President Clinton and think about the importance that this has for American leadership, will support what we're doing.
SESNO: I spoke with a European leader during the time that the leaders from around the world were at the United Nations. And he said there are simply no way, and he's very familiar with the situation, that peace can be brought and Bosnia put back together again in a year.
The time-line that you're laying out for U.S. participation in this mission is not realistic, he says.
ALBRIGHT: Well, the time-line has been laid out by the military. They understand the role...
SESNO: But, do you believe this can be done in a year?
ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that the security that is necessary for the Bosnians to be able to have the confidence to rebuild themselves, that the time-line is appropriate. This doesn't mean that everything is going to be done with in a year. We have never said that. What we have said is that the military mission here -- which is to guarantee that the military aspects of the treaty are implemented, and that the Bosnians have confidence, or all the people within the area have confidence to rebuild themselves -- that's the role that's supposed to happen in a year.
But I think the international community will be in there for a while in terms of reconstruction efforts, in terms of trying to allow the Bosnians the opportunity to rebuild themselves.
SESNO: What happens if there is no Congressional approval. President Clinton wants Congressional approval for this, what happens if its not forthcoming?
ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that there's every reason to believe that after a good discussion and dialogue that the members of Congress will understand the strategic and moral imperative for this action, so...
SESNO: So you're counting on them going along?
ALBRIGHT: Well, we think that they are reasonable people who have wanted so much -- you know, Frank, this has been so interesting. It's been Congress -- there are many members in Congress who have saying, "you cannot let this kind of thing go on any longer. How can you tolerate those horrible pictures that came out of Bosnia?"
I think they need to hear the President's arguments and those of us that are going to be testifying -- they have to listen to the Bosnians.
ALBRIGHT: The Bosnians want this. And I think that we need to provide that kind of support.
SESNO: Madame Ambassador, there is a lot of concern -- and we are almost out of time so let me make this brief and move on to one other subject before we are out of time here.
There is a lot of concern for mission creep here. That the military gets involved in resettling refugees; dealing -- reconstituting the government or even shepherding in elections. Something that NATO has absolutely no experience with whatsoever.
ALBRIGHT: Well this a very carefully defined mission. First of all, NATO, this international force, is going in there to fulfill the military parts of this. The United Nations is going to have nothing to do with the military part; none of the dual-key, none of those questions that have come up before.
The civilian part of this operation you are talking about, refugees and reconstruction -- that will go on for a while. But the military mission will not creep. It will not expand because it is very carefully defined.
SESNO: Let me turn to another subject before we are out of time. And that is Haiti. Today in the Washington Post, "U.S. plans to bolster Haiti forces." Questions of increasing violence in Haiti and suggestions from President Aristide that he may chose to stay on, or run for re-election if you will, as president there despite earlier assurances to the contrary.
What's going on?
ALBRIGHT: Well, the president there -- obviously going through an evolution process in Haiti. I think we have to remember what things were like in Haiti before. As you know, we have had many discussions, you and I, about the refugees and the horrible situation.
I think on the whole the situation in Haiti has gone very well.
SESNO: Is it acceptable for President Aristide to run election, as far as the United States is concerned?
ALBRIGHT: The United States has said that there would be elections on December 17; that plan is still going forward. There is no reason to think otherwise.
SESNO: But he had given reassurances before he was returned, courtesy of U.S. forces, that he would not seek re-election.
ALBRIGHT: Well, he has not said that he would and I think that we need to deal with the situation according to what he has actually said.
SESNO: Is it your signal to President Aristide, to the Haitian people and to the American public that this is an acceptable form for him?
ALBRIGHT: We expect elections to be held on December 17, and a successor to be chosen.
SESNO: Not President Aristide.
ALBRIGHT: We expect elections to be held on December 17, and a successor to be chosen. President had committed himself to that schedule.
SESNO: OK. Madeleine Albright. Thanks, very much for your time, I appreciate it.
ALBRIGHT: Thank you, very much.
SESNO: Well, when we come back, two senators on opposite sides of the Bosnia debate. Should U.S. troops go? What will their mission be?
(NEWS BREAK)
SESNO: And welcome back to LATE EDITION. We are joined now by two senators on he Armed Services Committee. Republican Senator Dan Coats of Indiana; he has serious misgivings about deploying U.S. troops to Bosnia. And Democratic Senator Charles Robb of Virginia; he supports U.S. troop deployment as part of a NATO mission.
To both of you then, this is something of the debate, I suppose, we are going to be hearing.
President Clinton yesterday said, "American values, our interests and our leadership are here at stake." And presumably it is going to be a variation on that broad theme that we will be hearing in his speech to the nation tomorrow night. Are you not buying that Senator Coats? If the United State doesn't lead, if you listen to Madeleine Albright and others, who will?
COATS: Well, I am not buying that at this point. I don't think the president has made the case that the United States, with troops on the ground in a very dangerous situation in Europe, has to take place before this can be successfully resolved. I think it is primarily a European problem. I think the United States can certainly support with air power, with logistics, with even command and control.
But it is putting the United States troops in there, as supposedly peacekeepers, while we are at the same time arming the Muslims.
I think there are just a lot of questions that have yet to be satisfactorily answered by the President, and until they are, I don't think it would be wise for him to deploy those troops.
ROBB: I think can and will answer those questions. He's got a very difficult challenge tomorrow night, but I think he'll be able to meet that challenge.
It's clear that our values are at stake. Clearly, the future of NATO, the future of U.S. leadership in the world, and the possibility of having this conflict -- particularly if we were to withdraw at this point -- spread south into the Balkans, into Macedonia or Kosovo, Albania, Greece, Turkey, what have you, is a very substantial interest as far as the United States is concerned.
And I think that if we're going to be in the position that we are right now, occupying a position of world leadership, we have a responsibility to act.
SESNO: Do you not buy that -- the danger of spread?
COATS: I don't. It's had four years to spread, and it has not spread. It appears to me to be an internal civil war between fighting factions, and besides, there's a better strategy for keeping it from spreading. We can simply put a containment strategy in place, rather than enter into Bosnia in attempt to sort of separate the warring parties, put ourself in between and say, "Now, let's all behave like adults here."
They've been fighting each other off and on for 600 years. There's a lot of enmities and problems there that I'm not sure we can resolve, particularly in one year time.
ROBB: But World War I started in Sarajevo, and we know that conflicts from this region can clearly spread. The difficulty is stopping it if it gets out of hand, and I think that almost anyone who's looked at it, including those who have serious and understandable reservations, has come to the conclusion that if we were to withdraw at this point, if we didn't live up to the part of the deal that we have led successfully, that the consequences would be an immediate continuation of the slaughter and the prospect of very rapid spread -- perhaps not until the spring because the conditions are not suitable for very many offensive operations right now -- but it's very clear that we need to try to do everything we can to contain this.
And I agree with Senator Coats that part of what we're doing is containment, but we do it in the context of the force which is ample to meet any of the potential challenges that we face.
COATS: I think that there's a problem with the one-year timetable. First of all, if we do wait until spring -- and it's likely that we will to really put this thing in place -- if we wait until spring, then we're only six months away or so from pulling those troops out.
Now, it seems to me if I'm interested in continuing the conflict or getting revenge for someone taking my land or imposing a so-called peace by force, I'll just simply wait that out for six months and then resume conflict.
If that's the case, I don't know how that helps NATO, and I think this whole idea of setting a limited period of time and also using that time, as Ambassador Albright said, to build up the Bosnian forces, I think creates a potential situation that could even be worse once we leave than it is at this particular point in time.
The bottom line is unless the parties themselves are committed to peace, we're not going to have peace in Sarajevo. It may be delayed for a year -- conflict -- but I don't think we'll have a real peace.
SESNO: But they are going to have a real peace, if you look at the document. We've got it here. They've signed it. Even the Bosnian Serbs have said...
ROBB: Let me add that we're not going to wait until spring to put the forces in. As soon as the signing is held in Paris, I suspect tomorrow night, the President is going to release some of the details about the planning.
But it's clear from everything that's been said publicly so far -- and I had an opportunity to review some of the plans on Friday over at the Pentagon -- that we're going to move rapidly, that we're going to be in place quickly.
And that some time in the very near future, we'll be in position to carry out what is our initial mission.
It will take time to get all the forces in there. But I agree with Senator Coats, that we don't want to set an irrevocable time table in terms of an exit strategy because they'll -- the parties -- whoever they may at that point will use that against us.
I have argued against this with Secretary Perry, Secretary Christopher, and General Shalikashvili. I think that if we - - which we were saying early. It will be 12 months and we're out of there. We clearly ought to have an exit strategy that moves us out when the situation is stabilized. But it ought not to be on a date certain.
SESNO: What do you say to the mothers and the wives of those who would be sending their loved ones in harm's way who might give the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, as to why they're doing it in Bosnia? Why the United States needs to comprise one-third of the total force that would go in there.
ROBB: Because if we don't do it --
SESNO: To keep these hateful, warring, parties apart?
ROBB: If we don't do it, it doesn't get done in this case. We didn't even have this agreement, until...
SESNO: The French and British have been, the French and the British have been in there -- and lying on the ground.
ROBB: And that's precisely the point. We didn't get it done. UNPROFOR became a force that was creating more problems than it was solving, even it did some good early on, and probably protected some of the citizens from slaughter and got some reinforcements in there and resupply in there.
At this point it wasn't working. The United States finally took leadership. I have been arguing for more assertive position for quite some period of time. But once we took the leadership we cannot now walk away from it.
And I think it's clear that the values, and I agree with the President on this. There are some basic values that are involved, but beyond that we're not basing it solely on values, because there are other places in the world where our values are clearly being threatened by activities in particular regions of the country.
But here, combine that with the fact that you have the prospect of an immediate cessation of the slaughter, and immediate prospect for spreading, the disintegration of NATO as an effective force, and our position in terms of world leadership, all at risk if we don't do it.
It's a choice between isolationism and leadership. And I choose leadership.
SESNO: You're both on the Armed Services Committee. You've seen the plan over at the Pentagon. I want to ask you what you think the real prospects are for casualties here. This is something that all need to be mindful of -- we're going to see the pictures coming back here on CNN. We're going to be doing our job. And we'll talk about how that affects foreign policy.
People will see those pictures and they will react.
COATS: Well, they will see those pictures. And I think the prospects are fairly high there are clearly are going to be factions that will be not be interested in peace. We will be serving in urban situations. That lends itself from everything from car bombs to grenades in restaurants, terrorist hit and run activities.
There are land mines. I think some two million scattered about the country-side. So we're going to risk that. The choice for those warring factions, I think, again is to either try to disrupt the peacekeeping effort, knowing that the United States with the experience in Beirut and then the experience in Mogadishu, may want to pull it's troops out, or simply wait it out and return to the conflict after we leave.
Now it's the President who said, the troops won't be in there longer than a year. He has said that over and over and over. And it's also the United States that has said one of our primary military missions is confirmed by Ambassador Albright, is to arm the Muslims.
Now if I'm a Serb, I don't think that I'd take to kindly to the fact the fact that the Americans are in "as peacekeepers" but siding with one faction and giving them arms and sophisticated American military equipment.
I think that makes us a target, not a peacekeeping...
SESNO: OK, gentlemen, we got to take a quick break. Senator Robb will let you respond to that when we come back. Right after the break. When we come back.
(BREAK)
SESNO: The details of NATO's mission in Bosnia. We'll talk with a general who helped write the plan. U.S. troops in Bosnia, just what will they be doing and why, plus your phone calls for the senators, still ahead.
(BREAK)
SESNO: And welcome back to LATE EDITION. Now joining us, Lieutenant General Marvin Covault. He's recently retired as Chief of Staff of NATO forces Southern Command, in Europe of course. And General we're going to talk to you in just a moment. But, Senator Robb, I did promise you I'd come back to let you respond to Senator Coats a moment ago.
ROBB: Well, with respect to casualties, I think it is important that people understand that there will be casualties. When you're moving this many troops and equipment around, even if you had no hostile action that was inflicted on your troops, moving helicopters, moving tracked vehicles, moving major combatant units in very difficult conditions, you're bound to have casualties.
And the really tough test is going to come when there are casualties, no matter how they happen to be inflicted, and there's going to be enormous pressure on the Congress, but more important, the President.
The President is the person who's really sticking it -- is putting his neck on the line for this one because everybody's going to come back and say, "What are you going to do?" It's important that we know that if we go in, and I think that we need to go in now, that we can't be in a position where the first casualties cause us to try to rethink the whole proposition.
SESNO: OK.
ROBB: There is risk, and we've got to accept it.
SESNO: General Covault, talk about that. Talk about the casualties, both from the terrain and more particularly from the protagonists there.
COVAULT: Well, of course, the first thing a ground commander's always going to look at are three factors -- weather, enemy, and terrain. We hope that we're not dealing with an enemy because we're there to enforce peace.
SESNO: Are you comfortable with that?
COVAULT: That we're not dealing with an enemy?
SESNO: Yeah.
COVAULT: Well, there is a political peace plan, so we ought to go in with the up-front assumption that we're not going to have centrally directed combat operations.
But the weather and the terrain are formidable obstacles any time of year. I've said on CNN this week that I think it's at least 100 percent harder to do it this time of year than it is -- would be in the summer time.
SESNO: Is that a suggestion, though, that it can wait? Because there is no either political expression or military justification for waiting beyond the weather.
COVAULT: No, it can't wait. And I was listening to Senator Coats a few minutes ago, who suggested that perhaps the timetable really wouldn't start for about six months.
If you read Annex 1-A of the peace plan, which is military operations, they talk about three distinct phases. And the first phase is separation of forces, and that is to be completed 30 days after transfer of authority from the UN command to NATO command, and I expect that to happen within 96 hours after the signing.
Phase two then is the movement of forces that would have to be relocated based on the geography. And that's to be done in the 45 to 90 day time frame, and at the 120-day point, we have already began to bring down forces that have all been moved to cantonment and barracks areas.
So, clearly, it is a very fast track for the military commander.
SESNO: From a military point of view, how complex is this from the perspective of the other inter-related issues because of this conflict -- three million refugees, possible war criminals, some of whom are still in command -- General Mladic still in command as a Bosnian Serb. The possibility of discovering other mass graves and terrible deeds that would need and require and demand some kind of response.
COVAULT: Well, Frank, the good news is that we're not going to be dealing with the debacle we've had over the last two or three years, and that is the dual-key, two political bodies with different views on how things ought to be done on the ground.
The IFOR commander, the implementing force commander, Leighton Smith -- Admiral Leighton Smith...
SESNO: An American.
COVAULT: ...an American who is under it, wearing a NATO hat -- he will be a NATO commander, is going to have absolute authority in the theater. His counterpart under the plan is a civilian who is going to be referred to as a high representative, has no authority over military actions or the tasks that Admiral Smith has to perform.
That's the good news.
SESNO: OK, let's go to the phone calls now and get some calls and questions from our viewers. Our first call from Long Beach, California, with a call for the Senators and our military analyst. Go ahead, please.
CALLER: Senator Coats, once again the Republicans are saying no, no, no to this President. What should a President tell our NATO allies if the Congress does not support him? And further, where is the Republican plan after the signing in Dayton?
COATS: Well, what Republicans have said is that we don't believe -- we do believe the United States ought to be involved in trying to bring about a peaceful accord in the Bosnia conflict. We just don't believe it's wise to place U.S. troops on the ground in a situation where it's inherently risky.
And secondly, what we're saying is that we think that the mission that they have been given, and that is to assist building up the Bosnian Muslim armed forces and putting them at a parity level with the Serbs, doesn't leave us in a neutral position, as peacekeepers ought to be viewed, but puts us as siding with one of the warring parties.
We also think that as -- as the General here said, that the terrain, the environment, and perhaps the hostile forces in the situation that we're going into just really doesn't lend itself to U.S. troops on the ground.
We've had some very unfortunate experiences in the past, and we don't want to repeat those experiences.
SESNO: Let me turn to our next caller from Vacaville, California. Go ahead, please, with your question.
CALLER: Hi. Good afternoon. I'm a member of the Air Force, and I see a disturbing trend being discussed, and that's acceptable casualties. I didn't think there were any in Desert Storm, but I do here.
Senator Robb, can you define "acceptable casualties" to U.S. armed forces members?
ROBB: Well, if you put it in those terms, we'd like to think that no casualty ought to be acceptable as such, but there are clearly times when we have to take risks, and those of us who are in position to make public policy decisions ought to say that up front and ought to accept responsibility for it.
We are going into this situation with a plan that I believe once it's completed -- and it's not yet completed but will be soon -- that I think takes every opportunity to reduce the level of risk so that our personnel are not placed in unnecessary peril.
But this is not McClellan's army. We are as well-trained, as well-prepared, as well-supplied, as well-motivated -- I spent a long time in the military myself, and I think that the military today is as good as it has ever been.
And I think most of the military themselves accept the fact that they're -- they've signed up for an inherently risky operation. Not risks that are imprudent, but things that go directly to the kind of challenges that a commander-in-chief or a nation that has some responsibility for world leadership ought to accept.
SESNO: General Covault, it turned out in Somalia that 18 casualties, when that terrible event took place, were sufficient to -- to prompt the withdrawal of U.S. forces. What -- what is an acceptable level of casualty, because it's really largely a political issue, isn't it? Even more a military issue at times?
COVAULT: Well, clearly, there are going to be casualties. Everyone who's in the armed forces today ought not to have had his head in the sand when he signed up -- when he volunteered to be in the armed forces.
When you look back at Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, the Gulf War -- all of the operations. He ought to have assumed that he's going to be called to arms.
SESNO: In Bosnia, though? You're very familiar with this plan. What is an acceptable level of casualty?
COVAULT: Nobody's going to put a number on that. But what you would hope is that if -- if a couple of helicopters go down and you would lose 15 or 20 soldiers all at one time, what you would hope is that it doesn't cause the political leaders to change the mission.
Because then the theater commander's in real trouble.
COATS: Frank, if I could...
SESNO: Very quickly.
COATS: If we are in a situation where our vital national interests are at stake, casualties may be necessary. But when you place American troops in situations where our vital national interest are not at stake, one casualty is too many.
The President has not made the case to the American people or the Congress that our vital national interests are at stake in Bosnia, and therefore, we should jeopardize the life of American men and women.
SESNO: And that's what you'll be listening for tomorrow.
COATS: That is exactly what I'll be listening for.
SESNO: OK, gentlemen. Lieutenant General Marvin Covault, our CNN analyst throughout this. We appreciate it very much. We'll be hearing from you throughout as we proceed with the Bosnian package here.
COVAULT: Good to be here, Frank.
SESNO: Thank you very much. Senators Coats and Robb, thanks to you as well. Appreciate your time today.
Copyright 1995 Cable News Network, Inc.