>NATO/US doesn't have the guts<
Why is it that every time the US is involved in some sort of conflict, someone always brings out the old chestnut that "US doesn't have the guts". What the hell's that supposed to mean anyway? The US isn't some mythical anthropomorphic figure, whose actions are based on emotions and who is obliged to respond to someone calling it "chicken".
I've had this discussion at least a dozen times over the last thirty years.
Usually this remark is made by someone who would enjoy seeing the US come in a poor second to any number of second rate, world power wannabes. It is inevitably followed later by a wailing from the same source that the US is a militaristic bully and a bloodthirsty imperialist power after our military sends a significant chunk of it's opponent's population home to the loving arms of their respective dieties.
Not that we aren't above a little payback. While US response is not based on emotion, "guts", or the lack thereof, it is a mistake to believe that the strongest nation in the world will tuck it's tail between it's legs and run. Don't be so naive. Sometimes it takes a bit of time, but no blood debt goes unanswered, especially if it involves the blood of our soldiers.
You mentioned the Iranian hostages, the massacre in Somalia, and the Marines in Lebanon. -The US was only too happy to supply thousands of tons of munitions to Iraq in it's 8 year war with Iran, something we probably would not have done were not a little political payback in order. -The Somalians paid doubly for their treachery in Mogadishu, both in military retaliation of a one on one nature and by us deserting the ungrateful bastards to their own devices, which were bloodier than anything we could have devised. -Within 72 hours of the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit there were at least six Hezbollah and Shi'ite stronghold villages in the mountains on the Syrian/Lebanese border that ceased to exist. I myself am only all too human and I must admit that I did derive visceral satisfaction from personally extracting some payback in two of the three events you mentioned.
The worst possible thing Milosevic could have done was to parade those US POWs around and make threats about their fate. If they, or any subsequent NATO prisoners aren't treated accordingly as POWs, then payback's a bitch.
To put another spin on this, I believe it's possible that this could be a win-win situation for the US. On one hand, NATO has a chance to cripple the fascists that have been waging a series of bloodthirsty ethnic wars for almost a decade, without anyone stopping them. On the other hand, no matter what happens, Clinton is going to take his lumps. Serbia could single handedly assure that there will not be a Democrat sitting in the White House come 2001. Not that I'm a Republican, I just believe that it's going to take someone other than a Democrat to start reversing Clinton's policies and repairing to damage he's done to our country.
P.S. MZ, If I sounds like I take this personally, it's because I do. |
