Military Intervention Inspires Fear, Hope in Bosnia : Balkans: Some worry Western force would endanger U.N. troops, undermine humanitarian relief. But war- and winter-weary Bosnians see it as their only chance.

KISELJAK, Bosnia-Herzegovina —  From the sandbagged U.N. headquarters in this front-line city 15 miles west of Sarajevo, Western intervention in the complex Bosnian war looks to many soldiers like a formula for disaster.

Any change in what U.N. peacekeepers see as an already precarious balancing act amid three hostile forces could be expected to endanger U.N. troops, undermine humanitarian relief and quash all hopes, be they slim, for a diplomatic solution.

That view is encouraged by Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, who has loudly warned that foreign intervention against his forces would result in “another Vietnam.”

Fearing a protracted and deadly engagement, Western governments have so far heeded the naysayers and sidestepped public demands for military action to halt the Serbs’ bloody quest for an ethnic state.

But dire predictions about the pitfalls of intervention have little effect on Bosnian citizens who have fallen victim to “ethnic cleansing” or fear its approach if the 10-month-old Serbian onslaught is allowed to continue.

“What good does it do to feed us if we are only to be killed later?” asked Husein Japaura, a Muslim mechanic in this mountainous outpost now dependent on foreign aid for food and fuel.

The brutal Balkan winter has been claiming the lives of dozens of weakened Bosnians every day--hundreds on some days--prompting the Sarajevo government to accuse Western leaders of foot-dragging on decisive measures that could end an aggression that has left tens of thousands dead and 2 million homeless.

Bosnia’s Slavic Muslims, Croats and those Serbs not party to the armed rebellion see hope for their own survival only if the United Nations lifts an arms embargo on the beleaguered forces loyal to Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic or if Western military strikes are launched to break the Serbian death grip.

Humanitarian concern for the masses of starving, abused and displaced is increasingly arguing for armed intervention, but it remains unclear when and if that concern will outweigh military resistance.

“The whole subject of military intervention is a political question,” said Lt. Col. Bob Caspers, a deputy assistant chief of staff for the United Nations’ 6,500-troop Bosnian operation. “We were sent here and structured for a specific mission, to assist in the delivery of aid, but when a political decision is made we will act appropriately to that decision. . . . It is safe to say this command is continuing to assess its current and potential future positions. We would be irresponsible if we were not.”

One of the few Americans deployed in Bosnia, Caspers declined to disclose specifics of the contingency plans for a change in the mission’s mandate from humanitarian assistance to military actions to thwart the one-sided course of the war. But he expressed concerns that such a revision could expose the foreign troops to “negative reaction.”

“When you look for the effects of intervention here, you have to keep in mind the delicate balance we try to maintain to accomplish our mission,” Caspers said, noting that getting aid through armed checkpoints requires an image of impartiality. “A change in attitude by any one of the three parties can make our job more difficult in the areas controlled by that party.”

Lt. Gen. Satish Nambiar, commander of the 23,000-strong U.N. Protection Force in Croatia and Bosnia, has warned that his troops could become targets of Serbian retaliation in the event the U.N. Security Council decides to move against the rebels.

Nambiar and his commander for Bosnia, French Gen. Philippe Morillon, also have speculated that armed escort of aid convoys might have to be suspended if Western governments send warplanes to pick away at the Serbs’ huge advantage in heavy arms.

In comments made on condition of anonymity, U.N. officers here are openly resistant to intervention and criticize the military options under discussion.

One proposal pushed by Washington demands enforcement of a “no-fly zone” over Bosnia, which has been violated more than 300 times since its imposition three months ago. A new Security Council resolution authorizing Western forces to shoot down violating aircraft is expected to win approval if a 4-month-old peace conference in Geneva fails to produce a diplomatic solution soon.

But one senior officer noted that Croatian aircraft have also been spotted by Western military observers in Bosnia.

“If the no-fly zone is enforced, we could shoot down an aircraft belonging to one side that is helping another,” the officer said, referring to Croatian military shuttles. “The expectation is that any aircraft that might be shot down would be Serbian, but what if it’s not?”

Officers also are wary of the Sarajevo government’s expectations that intervention will somehow reverse Serbian territorial gains that have given the rebels 70% of the country.

Western officers say precision bombing could knock out Serbian air bases or the tanks and heavy guns on the hilltops surrounding Sarajevo, removing the sources of an unrelenting storm of shelling that has reduced once-serene Sarajevo to a pile of rubble studded with graves.

But even a successful breaking of the siege of Sarajevo, where 400,000 residents and refugees live without water or electricity among the ruins, could have unwanted consequences in other areas of Bosnia, the sources say.

Many of the areas conquered by Serbian rebels have been left under the command of local guerrillas who might take revenge on Muslims and Croats who have not yet been “cleansed.”

Relief workers and other foreigners in Serb-held areas, like diplomats and journalists, fear becoming the targets of Serbian retaliation for their governments’ action.

“If there is a danger of our people being taken hostage, we’ll have to decide whether our presence is accomplishing what we set out to do,” said Peter Kessler, spokesman for the Bosnian operations of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. “UNHCR is here to protect refugees and provide aid to people in need. Evacuating our people is not what anyone wants, but if it came to that, it is something we are capable of doing.”

While aid workers stress that their operations are saving thousands of lives in cities like Sarajevo where normal commerce has been obliterated by the war, some concede privately that their efforts fail to get at the root of the problem.

“Feeding people doesn’t protect them from shelling and sniper fire,” one official said. “There may come a point where (foreign governments) decide it is worth it to sacrifice aid deliveries to end the war.”

That either-or view of aid and intervention is shared by most military figures. Nambiar told journalists last month that he considered relief work and military intervention to be “incompatible.”

Despite the military’s reluctance to become embroiled in a dangerous and indefinite action, the prospects for intervention have increased in recent weeks as details of Serbian brutality against Bosnian civilians have again forced their way to international attention.

A European Community investigation team reported last week that it had documented enough cases of gang rape by Serbian soldiers to conclude that the practice was systematic and officially sanctioned.

The rape allegations have stirred a new wave of Western outrage, following earlier tempests unleashed by reports of mass executions, detention, torture and violent displacement of non-Serbian civilians by rebels forcibly building an independent state.

British forces based in Vitez report that they get mixed signals from military commanders of the warring factions on whether they want foreign help and whether they expect it to be effective.

“The Croats and Muslims usually say they don’t need military intervention, that they need weapons and can fight for themselves,” said Capt. Lee Smart, a British military spokesman. “The Serbs say they don’t care about military intervention, that they are not afraid of it. There’s as much bravado on both sides.”

Although the warlords may prefer arms over intervention, almost any civilian questioned on the subject sees Western military action as the only means of breaking Serbian sieges and forcing an end to the war.

“Intervention would stop the Serbian aggression, there is no question about that,” said Mulenko Vucic, a local Croat with a Serbian wife. “Air strikes against Serbian airports and the artillery positions they have around Sarajevo would be enough to drive them back. Half of them are from Serbia, so they have some place to retreat to.”

Many of the gunmen seizing Bosnian territory for a so-called Greater Serbia have been armed and deployed by Serbian nationalists in Belgrade.

Asked if inhabitants of front-line towns like Kiseljak feared reprisals by the Serbian forces if the West takes their side, Vucic gave a dismissive wave.

“The attackers are already so overextended they couldn’t muster the forces to step up their assaults,” said the 37-year-old reservist with the Bosnian Croat army.

Most of the Serbian land-grab was executed during the first three months of the Bosnian war, when Yugoslav federal troops and their massive arsenal were deployed to back the rebellious Serbs.

Only about 20% of the nearly 100,000 federal soldiers actually pulled out of Bosnia, and most of the tanks, guns and aircraft were left behind for use by the remaining soldiers who declared themselves then to be the Bosnian Serb army. But the loss of Belgrade’s direct command coincided with a general slowdown of the Serbian advance.

“The Serbs took 70% of Bosnia early on, when they had the JNA (federal army) helping them, but they’ve gained little ground since then,” said Milos Vasic, a Belgrade-based military analyst who believes that the Serbs are already struggling to hold on to what they have seized. “If they were ever confronted with serious opposition, I think you would see most of them running for their lives to Mother Serbia.”