James--- a.Nobody gave NATO a "mandate". Whatever a consensus of the signatory nations says is within NATO's purview is, ipso facto, part of its mandate.
b.The refugee flows occasioned by earlier troubles in the region were largely absorbed by Austria and Germany, and were directly related to the rise in neo- Nazi activity. The refugee flows from Kosovo were likely to be absorbed by Albania and Macedonia, as has happened, with potentially destabilizing effects on those countries. Two long- standing NATO countries, Greece and Turkey, who are hostile anyway, could easily be drawn into a wider Balkan war.
c.There are numerous hotspots where adjustments through "ethnic cleansing" might be found attractive, and the Western powers wanted to take a stand against this crime against humanity in their own back- yard.
d.The Muslim "street" frequently perceives the West to be anti- Muslim, and thus it is useful to demonstrate a willingness to take sides on behalf of Muslims when the situation warrants.
e.If we concede that Serbia is within the Russian "sphere of influence", it will be that much harder to face them down when they make bids for hegemony elsewhere in the former Eastern bloc.
f.Muslim terrorists would be happy to use the Balkans to gain a foothold in Europe, and it prudent to deny them the opportunity.
g.The issues that were temporarily resolved in the former Yugoslavia might easily reignite if Serbia is permitted resurgence, and broaden further as traditional sympathies are stoked.
These are reasons for intervention, whether or not you think that they "rise to the level" of direct military involvement.... |
