Widely touted as the president who would implement a grand design in domestic affairs, Clinton in fact is emerging as the architect of a new American empire abroad -- one that could come to look like the old Ottoman Empire. The Bosnia-Croat-Serb peace accord in Dayton is only one of three peace processes now underway that are spreading U.S. military power and political influence in Southeast Europe and the Middle East. PNS editor Franz Schurmann, professor emeritus of history and sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, is author of several books on foreign politics.

In the 1960s, Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. labeled President Lyndon Johnson an "imperial president" because he waged war in Vietnam without Congressional authorization. Now President Bill Clinton has already set in motion major NATO preparations for the arrival of 25,000 American troops in Bosnia even as the House voted against such a move. Is Clinton, widely viewed as waffling on domestic matters, becoming the next "imperial president"?

"Domineering" is only the sixth or seventh dictionary meaning given the word imperial. The first meaning is "pertaining to an empire." The more relevant question in terms of Bosnia today -- let alone Southeastern Europe and the Middle East -- is: "Is America building an empire in these regions?"

There are plenty of grounds for answering yes.

Consider, for example, the spectacle of the American president holding the presidents of three sovereign countries hostage at the U.S. air base in Dayton until they agree to his terms for peace in his newly acquired Bosnian protectorate.

Meanwhile, a U.S.-dominated NATO continues its expansion into Eastern Europe, like an empire stationing armed legions. Little noted by the American public, details of this expansion include:

* Poland and the Czech Republic clamoring for membership;

* NATO given transit rights by Hungary to send forces through its territory into the former Yugoslavia;

* Plans finalized in Dayton for a major long-term NATO presence in Bosnia;

* Some 500 American troops already stationed in Macedonia involved in 30 training projects;

A de-facto military alliance between the U.S. and Albania.

This U.S. military expansion into Southeastern Europe parallels, and is clearly linked to, a concomitant expansion into the Middle East.

* U.S. military forces are now stationed in Saudi Arabia, as the recent bomb blast in the Saudi capital Riyadh revealed.

* U.S. forces have recently held joint maneuvers with Jordanian and Kuwaiti troops and have earlier mounted joint operations with Egyptian forces.

* Israel already is a close military ally of the U.S.

* The NATO-linked U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean and the U.S. Seventh Fleet whose jurisdiction extends to the East African coast both have protection of Middle Eastern oil as their main mandate.

Historically, empires have involved much more than stationing legions. Empires mean political domination of the lands under their control. All three presidents of the former Yugoslavia now have gained Clinton's support by agreeing to the Dayton peace process. Titular president of the Albanian-majority Kosova region of Serbia, Ibrahim Rugova, has voiced loyalty to the U.S. as has Albanian president Sali Berisha. Egypt's Mubarak, Jordan's King Hussein, Israel's Rabin earlier and now Peres, the Saudi and Gulf state monarchies, Morocco's Hassan II are all faithful supporters of U.S. aims in the Middle East. Once in turmoil because of the Israeli challenge, today pro-U.S. moderate Arab states, working with Israel, have emerged as pillars of U.S. policy in the region.

Looking at Europe and the Middle East, it would appear that something like the old Ottoman Empire, which once straddled Southeast Europe, the Fertile Crescent and North Africa, is reemerging. What would bring the empire into being would be the successful completion of three big peace processes Clinton has been pushing: Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Arab, and Serb-Croat-Bosnian. Once these are achieved, the economic sides of the peace processes will move into high gear -- a huge reconstruction project for the former Yugoslavia, a Middle Eastern common market, and turning Israel and the new Palestinian states into pillars of a pan-Middle Eastern economy.

When in 1992 Clinton first surfaced as a serious contender for the presidential nomination, some observers saw in him another Franklin Roosevelt. Four years later, the grand design he first wanted to deploy domestically is instead now becoming evident abroad, not at home. While caving in to devolution in America, Clinton -- like FDR -- has become a convert to the idea of the U.S. as preeminent leader on the world scene.

This foreign thrust is not without its own perils. The two Middle Eastern peace processes are already facing rage from Islamic fundamentalists. The Israel-Palestinian peace process is facing challenge from Jewish fundamentalists as well. And in Bosnia, Muslim fears of a sellout as the country is in effect partitioned into three, with their portion the weakest, is already fueling a backlash and growing identification with their religious kin in the Middle East.

Many observers familiar with the history of the Middle East and Southeastern Europe would say that bringing back empire to these regions offers the only hope for emerging from chaos and revolution. In their view, Clinton is doing the right thing.

But millions in these regions do not want another foreign empire ruling them, especially one linked to a civilization they view as alien. If Clinton should be re-elected next November, the waffling domestic president could end up viewed as the architect of a new American Empire -- or one who dragged the country into a foreign quagmire as deep as any it has faced in its history.