DeFazio
to the Defense: a democratic response to Clinton's
Kosovo policy
An entire bookcase in Gordon Smith's Senate office
is filled with books on Europe. And he is as likely
to spend a day talking to a Lithuanian official nervous
about Russian aggression or a Cypriot diplomat anxious
about Turkish missiles as he is to sit down with an
Oregon business executive or lobbyist.
As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on European
Affairs, Smith is more passionate about--and involved
in--foreign relations than any other member of Oregon's
congressional delegation. Nearly a year ago, he told
Newsweek it was time to "shoot or shut up" in
Kosovo. So it only made sense to interview him about
the conflict.
Below are excerpts from WW's interview with
Smith Monday evening, hours before he was supposed to
go to the White House for a briefing on Kosovo. The
questions and answers, it should be noted, have been
heavily edited for brevity and clarity.
How did we let it come to this?
Our problem is that we have a poll-driven foreign policy,
and it's mostly comprised of bluffs and bluster. For
a long time Clinton was saying, "If you do this, we
will bomb you." But we never did anything, and the only
thing bombing was our credibility.
What's the main weakness in our strategy?
By saying he won't use ground troops, the president
has, I think, undermined our goals. Why did he signal
our pain threshold, which is that we can't have casualties?
We just told Milosevic how to win: wait out the bombing,
and when it stops, you're the last man standing--and
you have ethnically cleansed Kosovo and stood up to
the United States. In his defense, there are not any
good options. Those who say we should do nothing have
to defend such a position in the face of genocide.
As a Mormon you've felt religious persecution. How
does that experience inform your views on Kosovo?
Actually, it's one of the more noble things we're doing.
We're not acting to protect a religion; we're standing
up for all religions by defending Muslims against ethnic
Christians. But this type of thing is more revolting
than anything I experienced. This is religious in nature,
but God has nothing to do with this. This is religion
being used for political ends, and history is woefully
full of dictators who use religion to mask their politics.
Why aren't Europeans doing more?
I don't know how to describe this except to say we
are the indispensable nation in Europe. We are a child
of Europe, and it seems we're the one child that can
keep all the other siblings from fighting. The Europeans
couldn't fix the problem in Bosnia either. They said,
"We'd like to but can't without you." They've been building
their welfare states and reducing their military powers.
There's been too much drum and fife and uniforms, not
enough bayonets and bullets. Without the U.S. they don't
have the punch they need.
Are you worried about our role as a world enforcer?
I worry about it, but I also think there will be therapeutic
effect on tyrants all over the world who will sleep
less securely knowing there might be an American response
to brutality.
What does Clinton's draft-dodging have to do with
his policy?
Bill Clinton is used to doing things without consequence.
I'm not sure this one is going to go down that easily.
In other words, had he not dodged the Vietnam War, he
might be more familiar with more crucial mistakes of
that war, mistakes he seems to be repeating. I fear
Mr. Clinton has forgotten the central lesson of the
war he dodged, which is to have an achievable political
end and go win it. I'm amazed that Clinton has fallen
into the same traps as Lyndon Johnson. I'm told he's
picking out targets himself, and he's not bombing Milosevic's
castle because there are Rembrandts in there.
Do you think it's ironic that the pacifist Bill
Clinton is basically following the same steps as the
hawk Richard Nixon in Vietnam?
The interesting thing is that all the people who started
Vietnam joined the peace movement when they lost power.
And those are the people now back in power, and they
don't seem to handle the trigger very well because it
seems to create too many ethical inconsistencies in
their philosophy. They think that war can be surgical
and no casualties suffered. That's partly what I would
describe as the downside of the Gulf War, which is to
convince all Americans that we can have nice little
wars that make nice TV and spread our ideals without
human catastrophe being a part of it.
You criticized the president for dodging the draft,
but you didn't serve either.
I turned 18 in 1970, more like 1971. I had a draft
number. At the same time I was called to serve a Mormon
mission in New Zealand, so I went to my draft board
and said, "I'd like to go on a mission, but I'm not
opposing the draft. You tell me what to do." They said,
"Go, and when you come back, we think you'll be a better
soldier." The month before I came home two years later,
Nixon and the Congress abolished the draft.
What do you see as the legacy of this war?
That's the big question. While Americans want to do
humanitarian things, I don't think they want to be in
every fight, and this one is costing us $100 million
a day--and that's coming out of domestic needs, like
social security and tax relief.
What will the history books say about it?
I don't know--that we got in with the best of motives
and we are continuing to slide further into the bog
that is the Balkans? But we do have the ability to win
this. What I said to the president two weeks ago, I'd
still say today, and that is, "If we go into this fight,
let's win it on our terms; don't tie your hands at the
beginning." We may be unwittingly prolonging this by
signaling our reluctance to send in ground troops.
Our troops?
They don't have to be ours; they can be primarily European,
they can be Kosovar Albanians. We have leveled the fighting
field for sure. My preference is that we not be in there
and bogged down from the beginning. But we have dropped
bombs on the capital of a European nation, and we need
to prepare for every contingency for nothing short of
victory.
I hope President Clinton's luck holds out and he can
conduct the rest of his presidency with few consequences.
I wish him well and salute his best motives. I just
question the means employed for this fight.
