Dan Coats: “it is with reluctance I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my colleague, the Senator from Texas, because we share…”

“it is with reluctance I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my colleague, the Senator from Texas, because we share much the same goal. We had the same concerns about the deployment of our troops to Bosnia initially. We had the same concerns about the Dayton accord, which, as presented to us, was transparent on its face. It was disingenuous on its face that we could accomplish the task incorporated in Dayton with a 1-year period of time of deployment of our troops on the ground, a timetable unachievable by any measure. The continued existence of our involvement in Bosnia is something that I don't support. But I believe that the amendment has a fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw is that it makes Congress the determiner of how many troops and what time period those troops will be deployed once that decision has been made by the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. I find it difficult to stand up here and defend the powers of the President of the United States, particularly at a time like this. But there are constitutional prerogatives and constitutional powers that I think need defending regardless of what your personal assessment is of any particular President. Second, I believe it is unwise policy for those of us to make decisions about the force levels of our troops or decisions that micromanage how those troops conduct themselves and how they accomplish their mission once the decision has been made.”