The definition of "Winning", or at least acceptable resolutions, from NATO's side
There also needs to be a legitimate question asked of why Nato has any right to decide the political future of Yugoslavia?
The bombing in theory started in order to stop violence against Kosovan Albanians. Thus the bombing at least had a certain noble humanitarian excuse, even though it was ill thought out and obviously incapable of achieving its goal.
I'm not clear exactly what right Nato thinks it has, outside the right of the pure exercise of military power, to partition a soverign nation? If our goal is to stop one person, Milosovic, from depopulating one of the provinces of his country, assuming he is stopped, by what right do we then claim the right to redraw national boundaries or set up new nations?
This gets nuttier and nuttier. How far does this dog need to be wagged? |
