Teetering at the Brink in Somalia

President Clinton is not one to turn the other cheek. Years in politics have taught him that offense is the best defense. So when Clinton critics charged last week that the president's ineptitude was responsible for the recent debacles in Haiti and Somalia, he lashed back in defense of foreign policy.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Clinton blamed Western Europe for the debacle, insinuating that Britain's Prime Minister John Major put his political future ahead of saving the Muslims. Major fired back by accusing Clinton of attacking him for political reasons. Margaret Thatcher finally had to step in to cool the boys down, reminding every-one of the importance of Anglo-American relations.

Usually when politicians bicker, they're at least stretching the truth if not outright lying. But in this little-Atlantic tiff, each was absolutely right.

Clinton is right to say that the leaders of Western Europe are avoiding responsibility for the situation in Bosnia. The British in particular have acted like a bunch of patsies, allowing the Serbs to outmaneuver them at every turn, hoping that the Muslims would just disappear and stop pestering their consciences.

But Major is also right in pegging Clinton's motives as purely political. The last several weeks have been a costly learning experience for Clinton. The lesson learned: when you put foreign policy on the back burner, it has a tendency to boil over.

Revelations that his administration turned down requests for heavy armor that could have backed up American troops in Somalia reflect his failure. His reproach of Europe was an intentional distraction from his own shortcomings.

Clinton has now demonstrated he can go head to head with foreign leaders. The larger question is whether Clinton can do more than simply blame them. While no one disputes that the Europeans share the blame for Bosnia, U.S. leadership has also been missing. And Clinton certainly can't blame the Europeans for the bunglings in Somalia and Haiti.

Once Clinton gets beyond the blame game there are plenty of ways he can improve both his image and American foreign policy.

The violence in Somalia and the stumbling in Haiti have stirred up isolationist forces at home. Congressional leaders such as Senators Robert C. Byrd (D.-W.Va.) and Robert J. Dole (R.-Kansas) are hoping to institute tough restrictions on future operations. They would like the U.S. to deploy military personnel abroad only when our immediate national interests were affected. In other words: not in Somalia, not in Haiti, not in Bosnia. Without active United States support, hopes of making the United Nations an effective institution would be put on hold and potentially shattered.

But Clinton needs to hustle if he's going to head off this growing movement toward isolation. The best cure would be to make one of the ongoing operations a success.

Haiti offers the best opportunity. The military leaders in control have little popular support within the country and none outside it; they are hanging on to power by a thread. The new prime minister selected by exiled President Jean-Betrand Aristide is already in Haiti.

The military leaders have agreed to restore Aristide to power by October 30. If the current naval blockade fails to persuade them to comply with their earlier agreement, the U.S. should be an active member of a well-armed and supported U.N. coalition to evict them.

A U.N./U.S. success will help to stem the tide of isolationism by restoring faith in our ability to positively affect international affairs. But more serious reforms are needed to avoid problems of the type seen in Somalia. The U.N. needs a competent Security Council planning staff that has the participation of major military powers.

A central problem with the Somalia mission was that the U.S. went in saying they had no intention of disarming the warlords, this despite the pleas of U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali. When the less competent U.N. forces took over from the initial American force they had to face well-armed warlords such as General Mohammad Farah Aidid.

Integration and coordination between U.S. and U.N. aspects of the operation were poor. In the future, military and other leaders from relevant countries should examine plans in committee. If it becomes clear that participants are not willing to do what is necessary, then the operation doesn't begin. Period.

Marshalling support for a decisive solution to the Haiti crisis will not be easy in the current atmosphere. Nor will cutting through the U.N. red tape to reform the decision-making be simple.

But Clinton has done a lot to create the current danger of isolationism by repeatedly focusing on domestic issues to the exclusion of crucial international obligations. He now must commit to an active foreign policy and pull us back from the brink of isolationism.