Roger, though I wouldn't call Serbia "defenseless", I agree that this is nothing to be euphoric about. By coming to the defense of an oppressed majority at risk of being slaughtered by an army known for atrocities, we also aid another band of "freedom fighters" who are not exactly "diversity aware". In the process, we create a backlash of anti-American sentiment spreading from Southern Europe and Russia to as far away as China.
We have a potentially unstable Russia torn between its economic need for ties with and aid from the west, and nationalist opposition figures fanning the flames of discontent with talk of burning down all American embassies and consulates and even "let's bomb Washington" (Zhirinovsky). In Russia, you also have a nation that was once a true "Superpower", but has seen that power slip away (due to the collapse of an empire and economic hardship) to the point where the only thing left that makes them a superpower is nuclear weapons.
In China, they worry where next we might take it upon ourselves to intervene against perceived injustices (Tibet?) or interfere in other matters they consider internal affairs (Taiwan).
Both Russia and China also see NATO's action, without UN approval, as an American/Western challenge to their status on the Security Council.
All in all, this is an incredibly dangerous step we have taken. Intervening to stop a conflict from spreading to neighboring nations - one of our professed reasons for action - may, in fact, encourage its spread. Does this make it wrong or immoral? I don't think so. But, I do think that if we had leaders (and I use that term loosely) who stood for something beyond self gratification, our leaders might have been able to settle this without more killing. I get this feeling that we look like some childish bully who doesn't know any way to get people to listen other than through violence and threats.
Well, have a good weekend.
Bob
PS: On a lighter note - Go DUKE!!! |
