The House of Representatives' surprising refusal to support the NATO bombing campaign stirred partisan rancor Thursday and raised new doubts about American resolve to prosecute the war against Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

Recriminations resounded on Capitol Hill in the wake of the 213-213 vote, but the import of the action was undeniable: The conflict in Yugoslavia is unpopular with an overwhelming majority of Republicans and a small but significant minority of Democrats, even if Congress ultimately puts up the money for the war.

There is also disarray within the GOP, which is generally skittish about supporting a war President Clinton has favored. But many Republicans have been strong supporters of the military. Some in the party favor doubling the president's $6 billion request to finance the war, and the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday sent a measure with that provision in it to the House floor. So some Republicans must balance general support for the military with specific objections to this particular operation.

Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said the series of votes on the president's Kosovo policy sent mixed signals. The party will back the troops with money, he said, but many Republicans feel "the debate should have taken place two months ago."

The White House brushed off the vote and said Clinton would continue with the war effort. Democrats accused Republicans of hypocrisy for opposing the air war but telegraphing that they are likely to vote to pay for it.

Some Republicans have increasingly taken to calling the conflict the "Clinton-Gore war," possibly preparing to make it a campaign issue. And House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said Clinton and his party had failed to explain the reasons for American involvement in Yugoslavia.

But the House hardly sent a coherent message Wednesday. It refused to endorse the bombing campaign but voted against withdrawing U.S. troops. It voted to require Clinton to seek authorization from Congress to send in ground troops but turned down a declaration of war against Yugoslavia.

Many GOP members are upset about fighting a war in a region where, they believe, America's vital national interests aren't clear.

Instead, noted Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.), a staunch opponent of American involvement in Kosovo, the U.S. is going to war for strictly humanitarian reasons. He likened it to former President Jimmy Carter's foreign policy, which emphasized human rights.

Although the GOP, particularly at the leadership level, is still strongly internationalist, a growing number of its members are beginning to question some foreign commitments.

Rep. Charles Norwood (R-Ga.) said in the debate on the resolution Wednesday night: "Will you let your son die for humanitarian interests that we well should put on the backs of the Europeans? It is time for them to grow up. We need a leader who is sanctioning Britain and sanctioning France and talking to Russia and saying, `You guys have been burned down twice in this century, you need to be in the Balkans.' "

Young said many Republican lawmakers' memories of U.S. involvement in Vietnam may have played a role in their sharp questioning of the war.

Some in the GOP leadership have sought to avoid backing the Kosovo fighting. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), the influential vote-counter who pressed his colleagues to vote against the White House, said the House should think twice before claiming "ownership" of the war.

Though Hastert denied that the leadership pressured GOP members to vote against the president, DeLay did exercise his influence in the floor debate, according to GOP sources, and managed to turn around some members who might have been inclined to support Clinton. One was Rep. Mary Bono (R-Calif.), who switched her vote from yes to no at the close of the roll call after talking to DeLay.

Hastert, who has reached out to Democrats during his first session as speaker, found his leadership attacked as a result of the vote. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) said those running the House had shown an "amazing lack of leadership" and charged that GOP extremists are running the House.

Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) was more direct, saying, "What we had was a House leadership saying, "We ain't going to show leadership.' That's not a thoughtful way to deal with war." Obey said politics dominated the debate and that much of it was driven by a dislike for Clinton himself.

"The president underestimated just how much some people in this Congress hate him," Obey said.

But Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the leaders in the impeachment fight, said he voted against the administration policy because he doubts the president's ability to fight the war.