Potomac Watch

A Republican leader in Congress who these days prefers anonymity has been having this nightmare:

It's July of 2000. At the Democratic convention in Los Angeles, Bill Clinton is being "lionized for saving Europe and defeating Milosevic, despite the isolationists in Congress." Al Gore basks in reflected foreign-policy triumph, while Republicans can only grouse that Slick Willie has outwitted them again.

It could happen. But this time Republicans will have only themselves to blame, because of the cynical, Clintonian way they are dodging responsibility in Kosovo. In the debate between Pat Buchanan and John McCain, more and more Republicans are siding with Peacenik Pat. And in the process they may let Mr. Clinton off the political hook for so mishandling the war.

The loneliest Republican in Congress these days is Mr. McCain, a stranger in a suddenly strange party. The lesson he drew from Vietnam was that when you fight a war you fight to win.

But his resolution proposing "all necessary means" to do this can't even get a Senate vote. Trent Lott, the GOP leader who inspires nostalgia for Bob Dole, prefers the brave abdication that it's "Clinton's war," so let him lose it on his own.

The House is worse. Four out of five Republicans voted Wednesday night against even the current air war against Slobodan Milosevic. That included the entire GOP leadership, save Speaker Dennis Hastert, whose belated yes salvaged for Mr. Clinton a still-humiliating 213-213 tie. It's true Democrats had insisted on that vote to score partisan points, but Republicans took the bait.

Republicans were more reasonable in demanding congressional approval for ground troops, except that Mr. Hastert has already said he'll oppose them. The speaker instead suggests inviting Milosevic's Russian friends to negotiate a deal that Slobo can accept.

This peace-at-any-price view is echoed by the GOP's growing Buchananite presidential wing, which now includes John Kasich and Dan Quayle. Curt Weldon, erstwhile hawk from Pennsylvania, is leading a delegation to Vienna this weekend to discuss with the Russians the terms of NATO's retreat. Do Republicans think Milosevic isn't paying attention?

Republicans object when Mr. Clinton calls them "isolationist," but on Kosovo they are writing his talking points. The GOP wants to spend more on the military but doesn't want to use it even in the heart of Europe.

The Little Buchanans say America has "no national interest" in the Balkans, as if NATO's credibility isn't in our interest. The same conservatives who want to contain China don't understand that the best way to do this is to defeat Milosevic.

Mr. Quayle adds that it's a mistake for NATO to apply force in "civil wars" outside its area. Yet by this logic, U.S. NATO forces in Germany shouldn't be used to bomb Iraq in the Persian Gulf either.

The smarter Republicans admit a U.S. interest but fret that Team Clinton is too incompetent to run a war. One House leader says a staffer was griping about U.S. troops serving under foreign command. To which the congressman replied, "Knowing our commander-in-chief, I'd prefer foreign command."

But contempt for Mr. Clinton, however understandable, doesn't free Republicans from their constitutional duty. What is America supposed to do until we get a new president -- take a hiatus from history? The loyal opposition is supposed to urge the right policy, not sit back while the wrong one fails. Republicans who expect to regain the White House in 2000 might want to think about leaving a smaller mess for their president to clean up.

The biggest GOP misjudgment, however, may be political. Mr. McCain at least is well positioned no matter how the war turns out. If Mr. Clinton takes his advice and wins, the Arizonan will share the credit. And if Mr. Clinton takes the far more likely path and signs Dayton II with the Serb he calls "Hitler," Mr. McCain will have the credibility to criticize.

The Buchanan Republicans will have no such standing because they're now urging Mr. Clinton to cut exactly that kind of Milosevic-saving deal. Mr. Clinton will crow, while Republicans will face a vote on ground troops anyway, in that case to enforce another unstable "peace" agreement.

"We're going to be ratifying everything Clinton does, with a vaguely anti-Clinton patina," laments one dissenting senior Republican. It won't be long before Democrats use Kosovo to discredit impeachment, too, saying both votes show Republicans are motivated by nothing but anti-Clinton enmity.

Any GOP hope of running on foreign policy in 2000 could vanish like the balanced budget issue. "They had this issue of foreign affairs and Clinton's lack of leadership," says Gary Schmitt, of the conservative Project for the New American Century. "Now they've muddled the message and made it very difficult for them to run against Clinton while they're sitting on their hands."

Eisenhower had to rescue Republicans from their isolationism of the 1930s. And only the Cold War's end rescued liberal Democrats from their post-Vietnam pacifism. Do Republicans really want to trade places with Bill Clinton and become this generation's McGovernites?