A U.S. Navy ship launches a missile toward Yugoslavia. (Reuters)

Monday, March 29, 1999

President Clinton, justifying the NATO airstikes on Yugoslavia, has said that the United States hopes to secure a "peaceful, stable, free Europe." Clinton also said ending Serb atrocities against Kosovar civilians is a "moral imperative" that is "important to America's national interests."

David Leavy, chief spokesman for the National Security Council at the White House, joined us Monday in a live online discussion to discuss the Clinton administration's policy in the Balkans. The transcript from the discussion follows:

Rochester, N.Y.: A stable, peaceful Europe is obviously in America's national interest. World War I and World War II proved that. Do you feel Americans grasp this concept and has the Clinton administration done enough to articulate this?

David Leavy: I think whenever we put men and women in harm's way there's an obligation to explain to the American people the interests an objectives of the operation. I think as the Americans view the brutality of the Milosevic regime they'll see there's a real imperative and that there's also a broad security interest. More broadly, President Clinton has talked about Europe at the dawn of the 21st century. It's so important for us to stay vigilant and determined to see this conflict through. It's necessary to reduce his (Milosevic's) military capablility as much as possible.

RAF Alconbury, UK: How long is the Administration prepared to bomb? History has shown that air power alone is usually inadequate to compel an enemy to submit. Milosevic has taken the measure of the Administration's air efforts against Saddam, and he probably figures that he can ride out an air campaign until Clinton and NATO tires.

David Leavy: I can't commit on operational details or timelines for obvious reasons--we don't want to give President Milosevic more details about operations and timing than necessary. It's clear from the atrocities that we're seeing in Kosovo, that Milosevic has rejected peace. We will continue to attack Serbian forces that we feel are responsible for the atrocities. We will make clear to Milosevic that there are two end-games to this conflict -- he can embrace peace and stop subjecting his people to this aerial bombardment or we will reduce his military day-by-day until he is no longer able to wage war.

Anderson, Ind.: Has the NSC been surprised by the level of inhumane behavior by the Serbs toward the residents of Kosovo? Does George Kennan's written comment of several years ago still apply -- that the people of the Balkans have not had the civilizing contacts with the rest of the world that should work to moderate their behavior?

David Leavy: Any time that you see human beings treat each other with such brutality; such callousness and viscousness, it's disturbing and shocking, no matter what country or continent. I have faith that the Serbian people can join the community of nations. We're hoping in the long term that we can bring democracy to Serbia. We're hopeful that someday there can be real democracy and true cohabitation in Serbia.

Taipei, Taiwan: There have been a number of questions raised as to the legal basis for the air operation in Yugoslavia, including some legal scholars asserting that there is in fact no basis in law for the NATO operation. Could you please address the legal issue?

David Leavy: The air operations were authorized by the president consistent with his authority as Commander in Chief. The Senate passed a resolution to authorize air strikes. The House recognized our national interest in taking action in the Kosovo conflict. I would also point to U.N. resolutions 1199 and 1203 which called on President Milosevic to live up to his obligations and to abide by the agreements he came into with the international community to seek a peaceful resolution to the Kosovo conflict. The U.S. and NATO have to take action in response to the situation on the ground. NATO must act when its interests are threatened.

Paris: If the current bombing campaign - which I approve by the way - were to prove inconclusive and if sending in ground troops is not presently in the cards "without a peace plan" (according to Mr. Berger,) are we headed for a scenario of de-facto partition of Kosovo?

David Leavy: The choice is President Milosevic's We've made clear that the peace agreement negotiated in France would keep Kosovo in Serbia. It's a good deal for all of the people in Serbia, but he has rejected it. We prefer a peaceful settlement and have taken every step to convince President Milosevic to find a peaceful resolution, but he has rejected those overtures and continued to proceed with violence, and we're prepared to stop him.

Stafford, Va.: What does President Clinton mean when referring to the crisis in the Balkans as "important to America's national interests?"

David Leavy: The President believes that the U.S. has multiple interests in containing the conflict:
First, Responding to a growing humanitarian crisis. Through much of 1998 Milosevic waged war against ethnic Albanians displacing thousands. Even during the peace talks, Milosevic continued to amass 40,000 army and police forces and it's clear that he is bent on massive ethnic cleansing. We have a moral obligation to prevent that loss of life in the ''Belly of Europe.'' Finally, people would question NATO's credibility and resolve in the face of this threat to NATO's interests. There's a broad humanitarian and a broad security interest.

Haddonfield, N.J.: What options were available to the U.S. in Kosovo, other than no action or military strikes? Couldn't NATO have placed troops on the ground in Kosovo before the genocide began, thus being in better position to protect the Kosovar Albanians?

David Leavy: I think there's a false choice between doing nothing and watching hundreds of thousands of Kosovars die and putting in 300,000 troops to occupy Belgrade for 10 years. It was the judgment of our military advisers and political representatives that we could accomplish our objectives by air and that's what we're pursuing.

Portland, Ore.: Do you think that other countries should apply the same principle of "moral imperative" as a justification for intervention?

David Leavy: All of Serbia's neighbors, including Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia are familiar with their brutality. We have total allied unity from all of our NATO allies who are pushing forward for a strong military response -- it's my judgment that our trans-atlantic alliance is very strong in terms of the moral imperative of action.

Alameda, Calif.: I do not mean to sound isolationist, but shouldn't Europe begin to assume greater responsibility for matters in their own backyard? As it is, Germany exercises great economic influence. At what point in time will this translate into political influence, if not military? Isn't this crisis an opportunity for that country to exercise global leadership?

David Leavy: I think it's important for Europe to have it's own security and defense identity, separate from the U.S. The fact of the matter is that we have our own interests, as were previously discussed. As the dominant force in the NATO alliance it's important for us to apply our own military power in this effort . We have to leverage our influence to make the world more secure and prosperous. We can't be the world policemen nor should we, but we do have to act when our interests are threatened and clearly they are.

Vero Beach, Fla.: If we really have rescued an F-117 pilot, where are all the happy pictures of the pilot and the rescue team? We need some heroes. This isn't like the Pentagon. I am suspicious. Comments?

David Leavy: At the request of the pilot, he's asked that his name not be released for privacy concerns. We're respecting that.

Marshfield, Wisc.: With the increase in NATO bombing, we are detecting an increase in Serb atrocities against Kosovar civilians. Experts indicate bombing will not be enough to end these atrocities. Are ground troops the only way to end these atrocities? Will Clinton be forced to send in troops?

David Leavy: As I mentioned earlier we would like to accomplish our objectives through air power. The President has no interest in introducing ground troops.