With all due respect, Shtirlitz, a diplomatic solution was not found.
Actually, as I read the reports of the last negotiations, Milosovic was willing to accept all of the deal except NATO troops on the ground. Albright was urged to find another way to monitor the situation -- UN forces, International Red Cross, possibly even Warsaw Pact troops, any other option -- but insisted on placing enemy military troops in a soverign state. Did Clinton insist that Britain and Ireland accept Chinese troops on the ground to monitor the cease fire in N. Ireland? Of course not. Why then the insistence on NATO troops in Yugoslavia? Some reasons that make sense are a) to get a good look at the Yugoslav defenses preparatory to invasion, b) to tweak Russia's nose by putting our troops in an important Russian ally, c) to make off with advanced Russian military hardware on the pretext of "securing" it. The reason was NOT to protect the cease fire--that could have been done many ways other than by NATO troops. That we refused to consider any other option shows clearly that we were not primarily interested in the cease fire.
But why should we be surprised that Clinton can lie to us so adeptly? Why should we expect a tiger to change its stripes? |
