I would say the answer to that question is no. Sen. Robert Smith and Pat Buchanan also oppose the mission outright, while Rep. John Kasich says he wants to give diplomacy another chance. Steve Forbes is against sending ground troops, but he and Lamar Alexander say NATO should arm and train Kosovo's ethnic Albanians. The objections of the skeptics, however, have gained little traction so far. Dovish members of Congress, mostly Democrats who under other circumstances would oppose military intervention in a sovereign nation that had not attacked the United States, are strangely silent.
Character counts here, as elsewhere.
Hawks are encouraging the NATO campaign because they see an aggressive dictator in Mr. Milosevic, one who ought to be met with force. Hawks don't want to waste our forces on humanitarian missions. The debate has also begun about whether NATO's humanitarianism is the real deal. So far, NATO's war has made life worse for the Kosovars, and unless NATO forces are willing to fight all the way to Belgrade and then maintain forces in the Balkan tinderboxes for years to come, it seems unlikely that life for the Kosovars will improve much. While many of Mr. Inhofe's conservative colleagues want to press forward with pragmatic, face-saving measures that will lengthen U.S. presence in the Balkans, Mr. Inhofe favors an honest pulling out.