At last, Bill Clinton has a legacy beyond impeachment and contempt of court. He has re-ignited the Cold War. He provoked Boris Yeltsin to warn NATO and the United States: "don’t push us toward military action. Otherwise there will be a European war for sure, and possibly a world war." Fortunately, he added, "We are against this;" but he also said: "they want to use ground troops, take over Yugoslavia, make it their protectorate. We cannot allow this. Russia and access to the Mediterranean Sea are nearby, so we can by no means give Yugoslavia away."

These are strong words for a man who used to consider himself a friend of the United States, and vice versa. President Clinton has been on the verge of losing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win Russia to the West.

Today, it is worse than a missed opportunity. The bombing of Yugoslavia is a direct provocation. The rift is the result of incredible blundering on the part of the Clinton foreign policy team. The Washington Post cited aides of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who admitted that she expected Slobodan Milosevic to back down like a "schoolyard bully" after a few punches were thrown, and that Mr. Clinton agreed —ignoring the advice of the military and central intelligence. For once in his protected life, Bill Clinton ran across a serious (if deeply flawed) man and he is now paying the price of assuming everyone is as mushy as he.

Mr. Yeltsin, the man who stood against tanks, is someone else not to be taken lightly.

But it is more than a blundering administration. The whole idea of transforming a Milosevic who had already lost four of seven of his former provinces into a Hitler who dominated Europe was cockeyed from the beginning. The Serbian leader was afraid to provoke NATO too much in a "sacred" Kosovo he could not afford to give up without losing power, until he had nothing to lose with the bombs falling. Before, he fought units of the Kosovo Liberation Army and hundreds of civilians supposedly helping them; after, it was hundreds of thousands of innocent refugees. Ignoring the larger humanitarian problems in other world troublespots, there is now support for committing American ground troops from most of the welfare internationalists on the left.

Many on the right support it too, claiming U.S. vital interests are involved in maintaining stability in the region, and because we must support our NATO allies. With all due respect, these are reasons for opposition to ground troops rather than the reverse.

Look at the region. The whole Orthodox Christian cultural world has turned from U.S. fans to antagonists because of the bombing alone, becoming especially incensed that it was maintained through Easter. Invasion would be worse. Neighboring Bulgaria recently applied to join NATO and its leaders apparently still want to. But its population is livid, even supporting a Vassil Levski Legion that recruited 8,342 military volunteers in Moscow.

Macedonia has notified NATO that its territory cannot be used for a military strike against Kosovo. The bombing has rallied the Serbian democratic opposition to Mr. Milosevic’s side and has alienated reformist Montenegro from the West. There pretty much goes the whole neighborhood.

What the bombing is doing to NATO is even worse because it weakens the alliance itself. Neighboring Hungary has refused the use of its territory for NATO ground troops because Northern Serbia is populated by its ethnic brothers, and it has bowed to Russian threats to allow passage of supplies to Serbia. The Czech Republic opposed sending its ground troops to attack fellow Slavs. Italy has been critical of deeper involvement.

Even relations with France have been frayed, with The Washington Times quoting a "senior Western military source" that "Washington has started cutting Paris out of the loop on some [NATO] operations because of the worry of information being handled either to the Serbs directly or indirectly through the Russians." NATO member Greece has had pretty much continuous rallies against the bombing, one with 60,000 protestors, and will cut bait soon. Germany is wavering.

The fact is, the Kosovo operation is dividing NATO and this is the best reason to settle it. The hard-liners say, intimidate the weak Europeans but, if they oppose troops in their own backyard, how vital can the interests be? One of the essential requirements for committing troops by the "vital interests" right is that military action must have a reasonable chance of keeping popular support. Many have touted a Washington Post/ABC News poll claiming public support is growing for ground troops. Not only did they ignore two other polls (with different wording) that said the opposite but that poll itself found: "About half of all Americans said they are unwilling to lose any American soldiers to bring peace to Kosovo. Even a third of those who favored sending in ground troops would reconsider it meant Americans would die."

Republicans were 10 percent less supportive than the general population and, as the Des Moines Register’s David Jepsen noted, were significantly less enthusiastic in critical early Iowa.

Ground warfare in which troops do not die does not exist. We have been offered that siren call before and, in the past, the vital-interests right has argued against becoming the "world’s defender" and warned that, while we must support our allies with economic and military assistance, we cannot substitute our troops or will for theirs. Bill Clinton regularly ignores this advice and has committed American forces to 61 military operations, while George Bush did so 20 times in four years. Ronald Reagan only committed the military to 10 overseas operations in eight years. When things went wrong, as in Lebanon, he got the troops out.

The worst part about Kosovo is that it threatens other vital American interests. Russia may be considered "second rate" in some ways but it is the only nation that can destroy the United States with its 20,000 intercontinental missiles. That is why homeland missile defense is so important. But there is no shield in place now.

Yugoslavia especially takes attention from hotter trouble spots. Air forces have been shifted from duty in Iraq. Naval forces have been moved from Korea. Regarding the latter, it might be well to consider the "advice" of North Korea’s unofficial spokesman in Tokyo, Kim Myong Chol: "We sincerely hope that the United States continues attacking [in Yugoslavia] and sends ground troops so it gets bogged down as it did in Vietnam. And we hope more of its fighter jets are shot down." The U.S. got bogged down for years in Korea too, come to think of it, in terrain not unlike that of Yugoslavia.

---

Donald Devine, former director Of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is a columnist and a Washington-based policy consultant and a Vice Chairman for the American Conservative Union.