President Clinton has tried hard to make a case for intervening in Yugoslavia, arguing that Slobodan Milosevic is a modern Hitler and suggesting that waging an undeclared war against Serbia will help put an end to years of bloodletting in a Balkan civil war fueled by ancient ethnic hatreds. But those arguments are exaggerated and the president's own credibility is now on the line.

As devious, ruthless and power-hungry as he is, Mr. Milosevic is no Hitler. That German leader, and his demented stab at global power, is in a class of his own. Mr. Milosevic is no different from a number of contemporary scoundrel-despots holding sway over hapless nations where other ethnic cleansings are occurring that, for some reason, are undeserving of the president's highly selective moral outrage. Rwanda, for one, comes to mind.

The Hitler analogy is an exaggeration and the policy of ending ethnic conflict by inflicting violence on one side defies logic. Genocide to end genocide? But let's give the president the benefit of the doubt, even if at this point he has given us many reasons to distrust him.

If Mr. Clinton honestly believes that Mr. Milosevic is a Hitler, then he must to eliminate Mr. Milosevic quickly, decisively and completely. The president must throw the whole weight of U.S. military might against this Serbian despot; a modern-day Hitler should be dealt with in no other way.

Therefore, a crucial and revealing test for the president is his willingness to commit ground troops to the battle, however unpopular and unpalatable that might be. If Clinton is unwilling to do this, it will seem that he is again just selling us a bill of goods. That would feed the suspicion that an unspoken, scandal-related agenda is behind these piecemeal bombings, which as yet have only worsened the problem it was supposed to correct -- so far the bloodbath has only increased in direct proportion to the bombings.

At question here is Bill Clinton's integrity as it relates to a very serious foreign policy matter that may involve the sacrifice of American lives. Unfortunately, our president faces this crisis burdened with some unwieldy baggage: Most Americans just don't trust him.

Ray L. Cabigon, Towson

In their arrogance, our leaders reserve the ultimate threat of a land invasion of Serbia, apparently assuming that the NATO armies would surely destroy Serbian resistance in short order.

But the fact is that NATO would be attacking a desperate people in their own homeland, a wild and mountainous place that would thwart our mechanized army. It would be like the disastrous Russian invasion of Finland in 1939. For weeks on end, the Soviets lost a division a day to Finnish ski troops.

Or perhaps a better analogy would be to the British efforts to control colonial America, in which what was then the world's strongest army was utterly defeated by a ragtag army of farmers fighting on their own turf.

Michael Kernan, Baltimore

I had to do a double take after reading your March 26 editorial "The enemy is a policy, not the Serbian people." In that piece, you argue that "Mr. Clinton must be taken at his word, and held to his word, that no U.S. ground troops are headed to combat in Kosovo." But I have to ask: Who can take this president at his word? The man is a liar. The man is corrupt. And you say take him at his word?

Bob Valerius, Baltimore

Bombing alone will not win this war in Yugoslavia, just as it did not defeat the Nazis in World War II or the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army in Indochina. To prevail, we will have to put men and women troops on the ground in ever-increasing numbers -- and, to this prospect, I say no.

But the choice on Kosovo is stark and clear: Either go in all-out to win or get out as soon as possible. If we don't make a clear choice, this war will make Vietnam look like a polite garden party.

Blaine Taylor, Towson

The Serbian people today have forgotten their heritage, and they dishonor the memory of their past leaders who sought to bring a disparate land together.

If the Serbian people cannot find a way to reject the regime in Belgrade and, instead, acquiesce in sending their young men to perform the unspeakable atrocities their government orders, they will create implacable enemies with memories as long as those of the Jews, Palestinians and Irish. Endless terrorism will then be Serbia's inheritance.

Thomas Nastoff, Baltimore

In Kosovo, we can win a war in the air, without sacrificing ground troops. Thank you, Mr. President, and the few believers who are standing by you.

Jerry Rothal, Owings Mills

President Clinton and the American people must remember that the bombing in Yugoslavia is not solely a U.S. endeavor but rather that of NATO, an international alliance. Clinton's political opposition, and it seems much of the press, are calling on the president to use ground troops against Yugoslavia. But this cannot be a unilateral U.S. decision; it must be made by NATO collectively and the coalition must include military contingents from all its nations.

This isn't an American human tragedy that has unfolded in Kosovo, it's a world tragedy.

David Bavaria, Baltimore

Future historians will wrack their brains trying to untangle events that took place during the 20th century of Balkan history. They will learn that it was President Woodrow Wilson who, when World War I ended, masterminded the unity of Balkan Slavs in what became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

Another American president, Bill Clinton, now representing the most powerful country in the world, has undone what President Wilson so carefully created. Under the dictum of everlasting peace, President Wilson helped give birth to Yugoslavia. Under the principle of moral imperative, President Clinton is destroying President Wilson's creation.

Frank Novak, Baltimore

Following World War II, wartime leaders of Germany and Japan were tried and convicted for crimes against humanity. We can do no less in the case of Slobodan Milosevic. He must be brought to justice because he is the one calling the shots in the Serbian conflicts, not only in Kosovo but Bosnia as well. He should be made to pay for the millions of victims of Serbian ethnic cleansing.

Richard L. Lelonek, Baltimore

The U.S. government is not justified in intervening in Yugoslavia. President Clinton is wrong to put the United States in the middle of a civil war that has been going on there for years and shows all the bitterness of a religious war. Our government seems to think naively that after we bomb the area, and perhaps deploy troops, the Kosovars and the Serbs will suddenly and miraculously start liking each other and live peaceably thereafter.

However, if by its actions in Kosovo, NATO means to demonstrate that it supports the nationalist aspirations of ethnic minorities, perhaps it has succeeded. Albanian secessionists have been supported beyond their wildest expectations. Ethnic minorities everywhere will now be emboldened to pursue independence, believing that NATO will come to their aid as well. So much for NATO being a defensive alliance whose mission is to protect its members from aggression.

And if NATO makes Serbia so weak that Kosovars find secession safe, then the whole of eastern Europe may be unsafe. By European estimates, about 15 percent of the millions of people living in that region are minorities within their nations. They may have their own destabilizing nationalist aspirations.

The president has called ending the Kosovo tragedy "a moral imperative." But Mr. Clinton's foreign policy has sacrificed morality time and again. Hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in Rwanda, yet Mr. Clinton did not enough feel moral indignation to act to stop that massacre. The East Timorese, the Tibetans, the Kurds and the Greek Cypriots have all suffered cruelties equal to or far more severe than those in Kosovo. The president did not impose sanctions or order bombings in those cases.

Nicholas P. Krial, Aberdeen

To continue the war against Yugoslavia with air power or ground forces, which is the right way? That is the question NATO leaders are contemplating.

But there is no right way to do the wrong thing. The wrong thing was to use force in Yugoslavia in the first place and to continue to use force is to continue to do the wrong thing.

NATO leaders turned to violence to stop violence. But the result of NATO's air attacks has only been far more misery and destruction for both sides. Quite possibly a better approach, one that has not yet been tried, would be to offer the Serbs economic incentives to allow NATO peacekeeping forces into Kosovo.

Since Yugoslavia is not a major power that threatens other European countries, NATO can afford to take a risk on a peaceful approach. NATO should offer the Serbs as much economic aid as is needed. This approach will be cheaper and more moral for NATO in the long term.

Jerry Zavage, Laurel

In leading NATO into an ill-advised bombing campaign against Serbia, President Clinton has thwarted all of his stated goals.

President Clinton said the air strikes would produce peace, but they have expanded the conflict. Clinton said the bombing would protect thousands of innocent lives in Kosovo, but it has resulted in a massive assault on the lives and property of ethnic in Kosovo.

Clinton said that the NATO attacks would restore stability to the Balkans, but the flood of more than 350,000 refugees into Albania, Montenegro and Macedonia suggests otherwise. Clinton said that the airstrikes would undermine President Slobodan Milosevic's corrupt and abusive regime; instead, they have rallied the Serbian leader's most fervent opponents behind him. In addition, the bombing has soured U.S. relations with Russia and marginalized the United Nations.

The president has a chance to salvage his policy, but he needs to consider alternatives not likely to be proposed by his lightweight strategic advisers. Clinton should call for an immediate cease-fire and the establishment of a Russian peacekeeping force in Kosovo. The Russians would leap at the opportunity, Mr. Milosevic would be hard pressed to spurn his ally, and NATO would have gotten the Serbs to accept an independent presence in Kosovo.

Michael J. Keller, Annapolis

With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see that we should have used force against Slobodan Milosevic and Serbian genocide in the Balkans earlier and more vigorously. In 1992, President George Bush threatened Mr. Milosevic with U.S. military intervention. Since that time, we have made many hollow threats. Finally, in the face of 40,000 Serbian troops engaged in massive ethnic cleansing, NATO had to act.

Americans now see the faces and hear the voices of the victims and are beginning to comprehend that this is war in all its horror. Serbs, even those who once disapproved of Mr. Milosevic, don't seem to grasp the distinction between their being subjected to shortages and inconvenience and the Kosovars who are being murdered and uprooted.

Instead of folding when bombed, Mr. Milosevic surprised NATO by upping the ante and launching a horrific military campaign to destroy 2 million innocent Kosovars. He's dangerously close to succeeding and the stakes are now enormous. Like Hitler, Mr. Milosevic is presenting the civilized world with a bloody situation and hoping that we lack the will or the cohesion to act.

If NATO is to survive as a viable multinational peacekeeping force, which is critical, and if the growing wave of human suffering and instability is to be restricted to the Balkans, the United States and NATO must win this war. The American people need to understand that this means a commitment to do whatever it takes for as long as it takes.

Roger C. Kostmayer, Baltimore

Why Kosovo? What about Rwanda, China and other places where governments have commited atrocities? To some degree, this is a valid criticism of U.S. intervention in the Balkans. There is no evidence that Slobodan Milosevic is a Hitler whose goal is to conquer all of Europe and beyond. His interest lies in the Balkans, where wars among rival cultures have gone on for centuries.

However, the fact that we have not used military force in Rwanda and China is not a good reason to fail to act in all such circumstances. What we did or did not do in Rwanda and China does not itself make what we are doing in Yugoslavia wrong. Consistency is a natural preference, but it's not always practical.

The real question now is, what do we do next? I believe we should try to reverse the effects of Mr. Milosevic's attempts to drive out, if not exterminate, Kosovo's ethnic Albanians.

To this end, I think we should continue bombing to deplete further Mr. Milosevic's military and economic capacity to fight. I would also inflict as much punishment as possible on the Serbian military and paramilitary forces in Kosovo and assemble a large NATO ground force that is capable of occupying Kosovo.

I don't buy the argument that we should leave others to settle their internal differences -- not when this leads to genocide. Our ultimate goal should be to secure Kosovo as an independent state, return what remains of its displaced population and help rebuild that country. Yes, this will mean an indefinite peacekeeping presence, but allowing endless warfare between cultures is unacceptable, and we have to become serious about preventing that.

Increasingly, we are one world, and we must do whatever it takes to improve our long-term chances for survival in this nuclear era. Perhaps the goal of a civilized world will never be achieved, but we must try if we are to survive.

Evan Sage, Columbia

Pub Date: 4/10/99