LOS ANGELES: While almost the entire Muslim community across the U.S. Was happy and satisfied, President Bill Clinton’s appeal to “do the right thing” ‘by sending U.S. troops to Bosnia received a divided reception across the United States last week, but one tinged ‘reluctant bow to the inevitable.

“It’s a complex question, ‘middle-aged man in Boston. “I don’t selfish the idea of sending troops to Bosnia to make peace if the Bosnians aren’t ‘willing to adhere to the terms. On the ‘other hand, we do have a moral oblige on ‘m some situations,

But in other pedestrian there countered: ‘“I don’t feel it’s a threat to the security of the United States and I don’t feel the armed services should be used for anything that is not a threat to the United ‘States.

A CBS News poll after Clinton’s televised Monday night address found only a third of respondents supported committing 20,000 troops to help keep the fragile peace that has stopped Europe’s worst bloodletting since the Second World War, But the poll found a higher level of support among those who actually listened to the President, and his overall approval rating rose following the address.

A CNN-USA Today poll also taken after Clinton’s speech found 46 percent supporting the deployment and 40 percent opposed, with stronger levels of backing among those who actually tuned into the speech.

In Cleveland, Shefik Dreca a Bosnian Moslem who immigrated to the United States in 1951, said: “Americans don’t play around. Those Serbians have big mouths and try to scare people (but) ‘Americans will see that peace gets done. Clinton should have ordered this a long timw ago.

But another Cleveland resident, Serbian born lawyer Milosh Milenkovich, said: “There was a peace agreement signed. Why do we need any troops there at all? ‘There will be warfare there for the next ’50 years whether he sends troops or not. ‘The Serbs will resort to guerrilla warfare as they have for 500 years. The federation of Croats and Moslems will remain intact but they will tum on each other.”

The New York Times in an editorial called the mission defined by Clinton limited, achievable and in accordance with American national interests.”

The Los Angeles Times called Clinton’s argument compelling, adding: “The United States has no choice … Clinton said the U.S. troops should be out in a year; that sounds optimistic. Congress ‘must question that target date, But the president’s cause is right” The Miami Herald in its editorial comment’ said Clinton would have a difficult time overcoming skepticism but “only America has the armed might and_ geopolitical suasion to make this peace agreement work.”

But the Boston Herald said Clinton should not risk American lives unless he ‘can guarantee that one year from now — when he said the troops would return home—the people of Bosnia will be living in peace. “If Bill Clinton cannot answer those questions —and clearly he ‘cannot—then he has no right to risk the lives of 20,000 American men and women.” The Dayton Daily News, published in the Ohio city where 21 days of USS and European brokered negotiations produced the Bosnian peace accord, did not comment on Clinton’s speech. But in an editorial published after the pact was reached it said Americans need who see ‘and accept the burden that their country at times is the “last best hope” in many situations?

Article extracted from this publication >> December 15, 1995