By Bradley Graham
and William Drozdiak
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 7, 1998; Page A01

Amid stepped-up preparations for possible airstrikes against Yugoslav forces in Kosovo, the United States faced deep misgivings yesterday in Congress and among some NATO allies about the use of force as well as warnings from Moscow that military action could disrupt future cooperation between Russia and the Western alliance.

Senators who oversee U.S. defense policy cautioned the Clinton administration against another protracted American military operation in the Balkans similar to the peacekeeping effort in Bosnia. And at least five NATO countries, including Germany and Italy, signaled reluctance to support the military plan without another United Nations resolution explicitly approving an allied attack.

U.S. officials expressed confidence that they would be able to rally the backing for airstrikes if Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic persists in defying international demands for an end to the repression of Kosovo's ethnic Albanians. Pentagon officials announced a formal commitment of scores of U.S. combat planes to the NATO strike plan that administration sources said could be activated as early as this weekend.

With U.S. envoy Richard C. Holbrooke in Belgrade attempting to broker a deal with Milosevic, administration officials sought to keep the pressure on the Yugoslav leader by continuing to highlight NATO military preparations. But members of the Senate Armed Services Committee used a hearing with the Defense Department's top two leaders to voice deep concerns about whether airstrikes would bring an end to Kosovo's civil war and whether the administration had thought through enforcement of an eventual peace in the Yugoslav province without American ground troops.

"Frankly, so far none of us has heard a coherent plan as to how to address the problem in Kosovo," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged the possibility that U.S. troops might be needed to form an international peacekeeping force for Kosovo. But they insisted that plans for enforcing or monitoring any cease-fire remained in the conceptual stage, and Cohen expressed a reluctance to support a substantial U.S. role on the ground.

"It is my recommendation and my -- I would almost say insistence -- that it be largely, if not wholly, European in nature, given" that U.S. forces "will be carrying the bulk of the load" of the planned airstrikes, Cohen said. He added that congressional unhappiness with the prolonged U.S. presence in Bosnia, and the high cost of that three-year-old operation, also dictated against "a significant presence of combat forces on the ground in Kosovo."

Despite reports this week that Milosevic's forces in Kosovo have begun to return to barracks, U.S. officials said the Yugoslav leader had yet to comply with other requirements spelled out in the Sept. 23 United Nations resolution, requiring him to permit the return of ethnic Albanian refugees, allow delivery of humanitarian aid and enter negotiations for an autonomy agreement with Kosovar Albanian representatives.

"I don't think Mr. Milosevic can be in a position to pick and choose out of the items which the Security Council resolution contains," Cohen said. "This is not an a la carte menu for him."

President Clinton reiterated that "NATO is prepared to act" to avoid the "powder keg" of Kosovo from threatening regional stability. "The stakes are high," Clinton said in an address to a joint meeting here of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. "The time is now to end the violence in Kosovo."

If airstrikes are ordered, U.S. and NATO military authorities envision a series of attacks of increasing intensity against targets in Kosovo and the rest of Serbia, the larger of Yugoslavia's two republics. The initial phase, limited to a day or so, would likely involve volleys of cruise missiles sent against air defense sites largely in Kosovo, followed by a pause to allow Milosevic time to consider his options. If he still did not comply, fighter aircraft would launch a sustained offensive to cripple Milosevic's forces by aiming at command posts, supply depots, tanks and artillery batteries, including those outside the troubled province.

According to defense officials, the United States would contribute more than 200 aircraft to the strikes, drawn mostly from bases in Europe and from the USS Eisenhower carrier in the Mediterranean. With the carrier are four destroyers, one cruiser and three submarines capable of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles.

NATO planners also have drafted a peacekeeping force for Kosovo that would number about 26,000 and could involve up to a brigade-sized U.S. contingent of about 5,000 troops, military sources said. But administration officials also were reported yesterday to be looking hard at non-NATO alternatives for supervising a cease-fire that might involve an expanded version of something akin either to the European monitoring mission in Albania or the diplomatic observer force in Kosovo.

How large and how well-armed an international force would have to be, officials said, will depend on the kind of deal struck with Milosevic and whether it comes before or after a NATO attack.

During yesterday's Senate hearing, Cohen was reminded of having wrongly predicted early last year an end to the U.S. military mission in Bosnia. Those forces remain without an exit date, and neither Cohen nor Shelton could answer the Senate panel's request for one yesterday.

Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said much of the committee's frustration came from a "general inability to understand and comprehend what the foreign policy is of this administration." Sen. Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho) said the administration appeared to be ignoring the lessons learned from Bosnia and other previous peacekeeping missions.

Added Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine): "No one disagrees about the humanitarian mission that would be involved if it necessitated NATO airstrikes. But the fact is, we don't know where one thing leads to another."

The congressional concerns came not only from Republicans. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) voiced reservations about the effectiveness of air power to compel Milosevic, citing the mixed success airstrikes have had in the past against various U.S. adversaries. And Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.) said he feared military action "might be actually counterproductive."

"I don't think anyone could give you a guarantee" of success, Cohen said. But he added that NATO's failure to take action would result "in Milosevic getting stronger, more arrogant."

Even so, the looming decision of whether to launch military operations in the Balkans for the second time in three years is being approached with trepidation among NATO's 16 members.

The United States and Britain argue the Sept. 23 U.N. Security Council resolution provides sufficient authority for military intervention. While France has in the past argued that force should only be used after specific U.N. authorization, President Jacques Chirac said during a visit to Italy yesterday that "the humanitarian situation" in Kosovo could provide sufficient justification to act without one.

But political uncertainty in Germany and Italy -- two major allies -- is affecting their support for military action.

Germany's Greens party, which after last week's election expects to become the junior partner of the victorious Social Democrats, declared its opposition to any military action in the absence of clear U.N. legal authority. Italy's center-left government, which faces a confidence vote in Parliament on Friday, is also concerned about allowing any bombing runs from its air bases without another resolution.

Several other NATO members, including Spain, Denmark and Greece, have said they would not support military intervention unless the Security Council gave its full approval. Since NATO requires unanimity for its key decisions, their reluctance could stymie the quest for a consensus in launching any military strike.

Russian President Boris Yeltsin warned yesterday that any NATO intervention would "be fraught with serious international consequences," while Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev declared that NATO bombing raids would plunge the world back to the Cold War days.

But having failed to carry out its consistent threats during the seven-month Yugoslav offensive, NATO officials said the alliance risks an erosion of trust in its security commitments if it does not act now. While concerned about the negative impact on relations with Russia, NATO diplomats said it is vital not to allow Moscow to tie the alliance's hands in any kind of military operations.

Graham reported from Washington, Drozdiak from Berlin.