TLW, very, very off-topic, but I couldn't agree w/ you more.
You don't go into a situation like the one we find ourselves in now in the Balkans w/o having clearly defined goals. Helping to stop the slaughter of the Kosovans (sp?) is extremely noble, but our objective needs to be more clearly spelled out. Exactly, what are we there to accomplish, how far are we willing to go to accomplish it, and what is our exit strategy?
Haven't we learned anything from Viet Nam? You can't fight a war (yes, unfortunately, a war) w/ one-arm tied behind your back. Either you commit to victory in the fullest sense, or you stay the heck out.
IMO, you can't fight a war in three-dimensional terrain w/o getting your hands dirty. What worked like a large scale video game in the Gulf War (because of the terrain and the non-diversified method of the Iraqi military) will not work in Yugoslavia. If we are going to be there (and I'm not saying we should or shouldn't be there, as its irrelevant), ground troops are going to have to be involved. That Clinton publicly states that he refuses to involve them does not exactly send terror into Milosevic's heart; rather, it shows Clinton to be the weak, political animal that he is. And while Milosevic is a butcher, he's not an idiot, and he fully grasps the depth of Clinton's weakness and will only continue to play him like the fiddle that he is.
W/O these items defined and fully addressed, we ultimately are just adding to and prolonging the instability of the region, and are not providing any kind of long-term, permanent solutions for Balkan peace. |
