Hitler would have been stopped early on if France, Britain, etc. had come to the assistance of the countries he invaded early on. His was not a civil war or a war against a terrorist army on his own soil. He invaded and occupied foreign countries, and the world ducked both its right and its obligation to protect those countries.
Totally different situation from Yugoslavia, which was fighting a terrorist organization (so designated by our State Department) fomenting civil war. They had both a right and an obligation to attack and defeat this internal enemy.
Your reasoning is exactly the same reasoning that any terrorist uses. The IRA, bin Laden, Yousef, the Lockerbie bombers, all identify enemies and bad guys, and believe that any means are appropriate to defeat that evil enemy. Same rationale for gang drive-by shootings in our own cities. Claim that you are going after a bad guy or guys to rid the world of evil, and that the innocent people of your enemy's country or race or area are your enemies because they haven't overthrown that person themselves, and you can kill them while feeling morally righteous.
If you like finding yourself in such company, that's your choice.
I happen to believe in the rule of law, including international law. If military action against Milosovic was legally warranted, the U.N. is the body to declare so. For NATO, a defensive treaty organization, to attack a soverign nation which had (and has) not attacked or interfered with any NATO country, to attack a country in blatant disregard of the rule of law makes us no better than any other terrorists anywhere in the world.
In the years to come, America will pay a high price for declaring to the world that we believe that those with the ability to bomb people they think are evil obtain the right to do so without concern for international law. |
