Ron, I respect your views and agree that some action to reign in Milosovic is necessary- but economic sanctions or "carrots" and diplomatic pressure would have done the job I believe
Respectfully Doug, the record of economic sanctions having ANY impact in either Serbia or Iraq, is dismal to say the least.
And the same arguments that are being made about NATO brutality in accidentally killing Serb civilians would readily be applied to the more indirect and long-term brutality of economic sanctions.
Economic sanctions directly and indirectly target the civilian population and are just "criminal" (but less effectively so) as aerial bombing.
Economic sanctions can be circumvented and the regime able to reshuffle economic priorities in order to protect their military apparatus. Laser and GPS guided bombs are easily circumvented and are a bit more tangible evidence of resolve.
Regards,
Ron
And economic sanctions have been in effect for years now, although they have only loosely enforced. (I had a buddy who spent 6 month over there working for the UN
So either way we're screwed in our choice of options. Applying direct and forceful action may cause more short-term casualties, but the longer-term pain will be far less, both for Kosovars and for the Serbs, and economic recovery can be immediately pursued, hopefully giving folks something else to look forward to than just slitting each other's throats.
Douglas, the balkans are not about direct US interests. It is about DIRECT EUROPEAN INTERESTS. Their intersts are ours because they are our largest trading partner, heading for recession, and still struggling with monetary and political unity. Any lack of resolve could unwind the EU and leave them political reeling.
There is no regional balance of power issue at stake in the Balkans which would require Milosevic to remain in power, such as we faced in Iraq. Milo, instead, is the primary source of instability in the region. And as such, his ability to create dissension and stir up Serbian nationalist passions within his neighbors, like Macedonia, remain intact.
I can't give you an answer on Africa except what I've stated before. National Security has to be prioritized, and the fact that 17 European nations and the US/Canadian presence have deemed the situation dire enough to risk losing local political support within their countries.
This is a European problem, but the US is providing them cover and playing the "boogieman", because Europe has constantly been unable to muster the will to launch into their first European military venture since WWII.
As for Indonesia, I'll betcha that Europe's stability tops theirs as a US priority. And close behind that comes Japan, Australia, and S. Korea. Somewhere lower down the rung we find Indonesia and Malaysia. (that from a source I speak with who deals with those countries as a State Dept representative).
As for one last comment on Jimmy C... he has also performed more brilliantly as a "tactical diplomat" than as a strategic thinker. Sure he got Sadat and Begin to sit down and make peace, but did he or his people like Stansfield Turner REALLY understand the role of global leader the US has been forced to play since WWII?? I think not.
His strengths lie in resolving issues through personal diplomacy and being a great promoter of free and fair elections.
Regards,
Ron
Regards,
Ron
There is no doubt that NATO and the UN missed the boat with regard to forcefully dealing with Milosevic and actively supporting the Serbian opposition movements (many of which are just as nationalist as Milo).
We failed to take a proactive and firm stance during the Bosnian crisis and we are paying in spades for that indecision. |
