The die is cast. American troops will go to Bosnia.

We must now put aside disagreements and unanimously back the soldiers. Sens. Bob Dole, R-Kan., and John McCain, R-Ariz., are two opponents of the deployment who are sponsoring a resolution in support of the troops.

For a case study in patriotism, compare their actions to those of Democratic opponents to Operation Desert Storm a few years ago. Now some of those same Gulf War opponents are the most vociferous cheerleaders for sending troops into Bosnia, where our interests are less clearly defined and where there is no strategy for withdrawal.

We are making a mistake entering the human meat grinder of Bosnia. Once committed, though, we must determine how best to ensure a decisive end to the hostilities there and, if unsuccessful, how best to get our boys home.

The so-called peace agreement worked out at Dayton, Ohio, is little more than a cease-fire. The slaughter in Bosnia is certain to continue, and we must be prepared to adequately validate and protect our military presence there.

The top brass has said NATO should complete its mission in about six months and then take another six months to complete withdrawal. But those are mere guesses. No one knows what will ensue in the war-torn former Yugoslavia.

We do know whatever does happen will happen to American troops.

I can't help but wonder whether born-again hawks like Chris Dodd, la paloma blanca numera una, realize this. Where will they stand, for instance, when a truckload of dynamite -- a la Lebanon -- rolls though a barricade and kills a couple hundred Americans in Bosnia. Or how will the anti-Gulf War Democrats react when U.S. troops wind up killing Bosnian civilians?

Will our president then succumb to pressure and limit the engagement, reducing or banishing our military superiority? God forbid. If it takes the full capability of our military might to achieve peace in Bosnia, and if that truly is our aim, then we ought to push that goal at whatever cost.

President Clinton has said the mission there will be "clear, limited and achievable" with minimal risks to our troops. But what happens when a clear and limited mission instead requires severe risks to our troops to succeed? Will this president, whose proudest foreign policy achievement to date is the debacle in Haiti, have the willpower to finish the job?

Despite Clinton's and his advisers' assurances to the contrary, we will not be able to negotiate a peace in Bosnia. A neutral police force is useless in that region. If we are to attain peace in Bosnia, it will come only through superior military force.

The Serbs ran roughshod over Bosnia for more than a year, seizing territory and slaughtering Muslims. It wasn't until the well-armed Croats joined forces with their neighboring Bosnian government that the Serbs began to retreat and cede territory.

So too will NATO's success hinge upon the effective and swift use of devastating force, something no one from NATO is talking about.

Our soldiers are among the best-trained and equipped in the world. If anyone can accomplish this daunting task, it is they.

Sen. Dan Burton, R-Ind., said this week he doesn't think our troops belong in Bosnia. He also said: "When our troops are put on the ground over there, I'm going to support them 100 percent because they're young Americans who are fighting for what the president thinks should be done."

I only hope the likes of Chris Dodd, Pat Schroeder, Dick Gephardt and even Bill Clinton will be as supportive when things go awry.

~Jay Eastlick is the news editor of the Southeast Missourian.