THE ART OF SELLING BOSNIA

By Michael Kramer

THE MAN WHOSE BRILLIANT HEAD KNOCKING FINALLY produced a Bosnian peace agreement two weeks ago traveled to Capitol Hill last Wednesday seeking another miracle: congressional support for the plan that will shortly land 20,000 American troops in an area steeped in hatred and skilled at war. "It was kind of like running into a brick wall," says U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, "and the critics weren't just Republicans." Holbrooke addressed about 100 members of the House Democratic Caucus and received a standing ovation. It was "great," he says, "for about two minutes. Everyone was polite at first, saying things like 'Blessed are the peacemakers.' And then, one by one, they got up and shouted, 'But I haven't gotten a single call from a constituent supporting you yet.' It was the most friendly hostile experience I've ever had."

The vote the Administration hopes to win will be taken soon, and the outcome remains uncertain. In the Senate, the support of majority leader Bob Dole will probably win the backing that Bill Clinton desires, and Dole's courage should not be minimized. With the exception of Senator Richard Lugar, all the other G.O.P. presidential candidates oppose Clinton on Bosnia--the most vocal being Phil Gramm, who, in declaring his position even before the President made his case, showed again that he seems never to have encountered a principle he won't rise above in the service of ambition. Dole knows what is coming ("I'll take some hits for this," he says), but he, more than most, respects presidential prerogatives and would like to enjoy them himself in 1997.

In moving to Clinton's side last Thursday, Dole highlighted an irony. Had the President earlier forced an end to the arms embargo against the Bosnian Muslims, Dole argued, it might not now be necessary for U.S. soldiers to enforce the peace agreement, an accord whose ultimate goal is to strengthen the Bosnians so they can defend themselves when the U.S. leaves. As a consistent opponent of the embargo, Dole had the standing to complain. But the heart of the matter, he said on the Senate floor, is simple: "The troops are on their way. We cannot stop their deployment," and they deserve "our support."

Will that rationale resonate in the House? Early indications are that Speaker Newt Gingrich will declare a "conscience vote," which means members can do as they please without regard to party loyalty. "The problem with that," says Holbrooke, "is that many Representatives are so new that they've never had to cast a pure national security vote." Indeed, 210 of the House's 435 members (including 134 Republicans) weren't in Congress in 1991, when it narrowly voted to support George Bush's war against Iraq. "Most of them," says Holbrooke, "don't like spending money on anything, view all issues as partisan fights and have never had to wrestle with something like Bosnia."

The Administration will clearly take any resolution it can get, even a weak one that says, in effect, "The President is sending the troops; we support the troops." That there will be a vote of some kind seems all but certain. Clinton has asked for a congressional expression. If Congress ignores that call, it will marginalize itself, which Holbrooke insists would be a "dumb" move. "It may seem paradoxical, but the best way to stick the policy on us is to support us. If we fail, and Congress hasn't voted, they'll share the blame. It they vote to support the troops in the field, they can still blast the policy," he says.

By pushing an unpopular course, Clinton looks presidential (a rarity for him), and if all goes well, he could win some credit on Election Day. In fact, if all he has done is buy time, that could help too. The President could claim that he tried, and if the factions delay resuming their war till the U.S. goes home, he could be saying that from the cozy perch of a second term.

But far more than the politics of 1996 is involved here. A "no" vote by Congress would be "catastrophic," to use Vice President Al Gore's word. It would constrain the Bosnian operationE(both strategically, if the mission must be changed, and financially, if more must be spent), but the true downside of a negative congressional resolution could come later, during a future horror. Then, when a U.S. President seeks to lead, those asked to follow could not be faulted for wondering if Congress will go along. "We only have one President at a time," says Dole, and his word must count. Since other crises will surely come, the question of who leads in dealing with them will always matter. "And no one but us will ever lead," says Gore. "And who would we want to lead besides us, even if they were willing?" asks Dole. "The Germans? The Japanese? Gimme a break."

As the drama plays out this week, Clinton may yet again speak to the nation. "If Dole says Clinton needs to give another speech to win the vote," says a White House aide, "he will." If he does, the President might consider repeating the lines he used last Wednesday in London: "In this new era, we must rise not to a call to arms but to a call to peace ... To do so we must maintain the resolve we shared in war when everything was at stake. In this new world, our lives are not so very much at risk, but much of what makes life worth living is still very much at stake."

--With reporting by J.F.O. McAllister, with Clinton

With reporting by J.F.O. MCALLISTER, WITH CLINTON