CLINTON TO DETAIL MILITARY'S ROLE IN TWO TROUBLE SPOTS.

Byline: Robert A. Rankin Knight-Ridder Tribune News Wire

Amid increased violence in Bosnia and Zaire, President Clinton will spell out today why he intends to send troops to both countries despite concerns over U.S. entanglement in the regional conflicts.

Clinton plans to speak from the White House this morning, a recognition that the sudden dispatch of U.S. troops to two hot spots overseas may take the American people by surprise.

The president did little to prepare the public for such dangerous possibilities during his successful campaign for re-election. Clinton never mentioned anything about sending troops to Zaire, and Bosnia came up only rarely, usually when Clinton emphasized how successful the current mission has been in securing a shaky peace.

In his address, Clinton is expected to explain why he gave conditional approval Wednesday to join a new United Nations mission to provide humanitarian aid to refugees in Zaire and to help them return home to neighboring Rwanda. Up to 5,000 U.S. troops could be sent to central Africa.

He also is expected to announce his final approval of U.S. participation in the ``phase two'' Bosnia mission. That could result in as many as 10,000 U.S. troops in Bosnia for at least a year.

NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana told reporters here Thursday that 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops are likely to join a new 30,000-strong mission to shore up the shaky peace in Bosnia.

Solana said Vice President Al Gore indicated to him that Clinton was likely to approve the plan, although Gore later emphasized that he told Solana no final decision had been made. Fighting broke out anew between Serbs and Muslims earlier this week before NATO peacekeepers contained it.

Discussing the deployment to Africa, Defense Secretary William Perry tried Thursday to allay concerns about the danger to U.S. soldiers.

``Our troops that go in will go in armed and with rules of engagement that will provide for their own protection. . . . So I want to make a clear distinction; we will have arms and have what we call robust rules of engagement that allow our forces to protect themselves.''

Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon stressed that before U.S. troops go into Africa, Washington wants assurances that the violence has stopped.

``What we would like is a pledge by the sides that there will be a cease-fire,'' Bacon said. A ``de facto cease-fire'' between warring Hutu and Tutsi militia groups and Zairian forces would suffice, and it would not have to be ``a written, signed agreement,'' he added.

Tribal warfare in the region between Hutus and Tutsis over the past two years has slaughtered hundreds of thousands, sunk three nations into sporadic civil war and left some 1.2 million refugees trapped among rival armies and guerrilla forces.

Most congressional leaders were not in Washington and issued no reactions, but Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was briefed privately by Perry and issued a guarded statement.

Thurmond said he remained ``deeply concerned about the increasing use of U.S. troops for policing operations throughout the world, as well as the costs associated with such operations.''

Thurmond said many questions still remained to be answered about the African mission's scope, objectives, costs and exit strategy.

Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton, senior Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, was supportive of the mission to Africa, but emphasized the limits on what can be done:

``The United States must do its part to help in the face of this human catastrophe. . . . The U.S. can't stand by and do nothing. Many hundreds of thousands of people are at risk. . . . It is also clear that the United States and its allies alone can't solve Africa's problems. We should help where we can. But the president is right to limit our involvement and carefully define our mission.''

Some 15,000 U.S. troops have been in Bosnia since January as part of a 50,000-strong NATO peacekeeping force. They are being phased out by March, but are likely to be replaced by a new force of 25,000 to 35,000 troops drawn from up to 30 countries to stabilize the peace secured over the past year.

Last year, Clinton stressed that all U.S. troops would leave Bosnia by Dec. 20, but for months NATO officials have made clear that ethnic violence would flare anew there unless some NATO follow-up force remained longer.

Deputy Secretary of Defense John White told Congress in September that the Clinton administration would consider participating in a follow-up NATO force, but the president never committed himself to it publicly.

Until now, Clinton has said only that he would examine options on Bosnia along with his NATO allies.