Buongiorno Yaacov,
You said:
Now, we can criticize NATO in Dutch, German, and French on this thread, but it is not NATO that has missed the target, it is the poliical leadership.
It is the political leadership that has no will to fight. US is led by a coward that burnt his own draft card and became a road scolar rather than serv his own country!! That speaks for itself.
Out of 10000 sorties flown by NATO, the total war casualty is kept to minimum and yet NATO has to go on the podium, every day, to explain to the world why a bus was hit by accident! Why don't they ask Milosevic why his "Snega" is committing mass murder in Kosovo?
I don't agree on where you put the cowardice tag: Clinton is in no way a coward! If NATO depended on the U.S. executive solely then we'd be in for the ground war already. The problem is that NATO, although headed by an American Supreme Cdr., is still a Euro-American collegiate body: the U.S. do have some veto/executive privilege when it comes to launching nuclear missiles (remember the Cruise/Pershing crisis in the 1980s) but they can't neglect their European ''partners'' in changing the initial strategy! The US would have found themselves totally isolated in their Utopian attempt to set up an independent, Serb-free Kosovo. So, the question would have been: Are the US ready to support a second ''Israel'' in the heart of Europe?? That is a country sheltering a populace whose religion and customs are different from its neighbours. The remaining Serbia would look like the shaky kingdom of Jordan, Greece would look more like Syria, Russia would have the same geopolitical and religious clout as Saudi Arabia has toward other Muslim countries.
Finally, Western European countries would have realized that Europe's higher interests diverge radically from the US's: indeed, Europe has no interest in fostering a Muslim bastion between Venice and Athens... The breakup of NATO would have been inevitable, leading to a properly European Defence Organization.
That's the whole picture! |
