RIGHT OF CENTER: WHY TROOPS SHOULD STAY HOME

President Clinton said this week that the chance that American troops will be killed in Bosnia is a risk "well worth taking" to achieve peace in the former Yugoslavia.

I wonder: How so?

Bosnia has been plagued by ethnic conflict for centuries. There is little this nation can do to end it. Even if the recently brokered peace agreement stands and the bloodshed stops momentarily, there is little chance for lasting peace in Bosnia.

And yet the Clinton administration is pressing its case for sending 20,000 to 25,000 so-called peacekeepers to that volatile region. The military's top brass has said that if we send troops, casualties will follow. The president thinks it's worth the price.

Already the United Nations Security Council has eased the arms embargo against the states of former Yugoslavia. The Bosnian Muslim and the Croat soldiers have prevailed when unfettered by U.N. sanctions. Why not let the nature of the battle take its course or, if not, let European interests dictate the path?

If NATO wants to send a 60,000-member force into Bosnia, let that force comprise soldiers from nations with a vested stake in the outcome. Regardless of which of the three warring parties -- the Muslims, the Serbs or the Croats -- gains the upper hand, there is no guarantee the victor will be the U.S.'s ally.

It's likely our presence there only exacerbates the situation and guarantees the war's persistence. White House spokesman Mike McCurry says it boils down to a matter of funding. This nation now is fighting a war over domestic spending. It's a poor time to make foreign commitments we might not, or should not, fulfill.

The track record is shaky at best. There's the 1983 bombing of a U.S. barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in which more than 200 troops were killed, and the disastrous U.S. Army raid in Somalia a decade later. As in those cases, it seems American troops in Bosnia are being used as pawns in a political chess game.

For another example of disastrous international intervention, there is Haiti. President Clinton calls last year's "Haitian Vacation" a shining example of his foreign policy prowess, the practical outcome of which has been mayhem.

A new wave of violence in Haiti now threatens to engulf the nations' upcoming presidential election.

Look at the images out of Haiti: A 6-year-old child is killed while standing on the street waiting for the bus. The mother, rending her already tattered garments, wails in vain for the stiff, gray corpse. Haitian government police are blamed for the child's death, which sparks more clashes with police in the streets.

It's all part of an upsurge in violence in recent weeks since President Aristide ordered a disarmament campaign following the Nov. 7 killing of a legislator. Dozens of people have died since the disarmament call, as mobs -- backed by government soldiers -- search out sympathizers of the former military regime.

There on standby are the U.N. soldiers -- including U.S. troops -- who refuse to intervene. The U.N. military mission in Haiti expires at the end of February. What has been accomplished there? Yes they brought President Jean-Bertrand Aristide back from exile. But one type of thuggery merely has supplanted another.

This is President Clinton's proudest foreign policy achievement. We can expect the same level of competence in Bosnia.

Congress should halt Clinton's plan to send troops to former Yugoslavia. We've got a peace agreement, let's see if it holds. If it doesn't, let Europe -- with American moral and, if necessary, economic and military support -- enforce the plan.

We've got our own problems to resolve: A multitrillion-dollar debt acquired by fiscal recklessness that is matched only by this nation's unchecked cultural slide. Something is bound to give. It isn't likely that something will be a centuries-old conflict between ethnic enemies in Eastern Europe.

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