With due respect, I disagree. There is no evidence that Yugoslavia is planning military excursions outside its borders. This IS a civil war, much like our own civil war. We celebrate Lincoln as a great president for preserving the union, despite (because of?) the horror of Sherman's march through Georgia. Why do we suddenly decide that Yugoslavia's desire to preserve its union is somehow immoral, or that we need to support terrorists who want to split a nation, or that a country is not permitted to extract a toll on those who would seek to destroy it from within?
Clinton is most definitely arguing the domino theory all over again. It wasn't a valid theory in Vietnam; it isn't a valid theory here. Yugoslavia represents no danger to bordering countries. If it did invade neighboring countries, there would, I believe, be uniform world agreement on military action to prevent such attacks (to say nothing of there being treaty obligations to come to the defense of some of them.) Even Russia and China, I believe, would not allow Yugoslavia to invade other nations without consequences. But that is not what they are doing and not what they are going to do. All Yugoslavia wants is to retain its national borders and stop terrorists operating in their country.
I protested the Vietnam war; I protest this war. We have no moral imperative, we have no legitimate national interests. We have a president who, having dodged the draft and never served a day in the military, likes to play with military toys without having any real sense of what is involved in the use of military force and no sense of responsibility to go along with such awesome power.
To what degree is this bombing merely an attempt to divert national attention from the Susan McDougal trial? Curious, isn't it, how every time Clinton needs to get bad press off the front pages of the paper he finds some small, defenseless country to bomb? |
