James--- Not bad, but...
a. The point remains that NATO derives its mandate from the signatory nations, and therefore they are in a position to broaden it if they so choose.
b. The Serbs were massing troops for a spring offensive. It is unlikely that we have done more than provide some cover for the cleansing campaign, and perhaps given them a freer hand because the "shoe already dropped". Having said that, I believe that the primary mission was botched, by not concentrating on the offensive in the first place.
c. The Turkish treatment of the Kurds is reprehensible. However, we have diplomatic options to put pressure on the Turks that are unavailable in the case of Serbia. In any event, the fact that we have not acted in one instance does not mean we cannot act in another, depending upon impending disaster and chances of success.
d. I am not concerned with convinced fanatics, but potential recruits, who may be moved by the fact that we cared to risk American lives trying to defend Muslims.
e. Actually, you missed the point. We want to discourage similar behavior in the future, and therefore have to show that we will act within he limits of prudence in order to avoid miscalculation or give the diplomatic advantage to aggressors.
f. The idea, at least, was to preempt the KLA.
g. Given the Macedonian fear of its own Albanian minority, the proximity and ambition of Albania, the smoldering tensions in Bosnia, the resurgence of pan- Slavism in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, and other numerous factors, the speculation was not wild... |
