Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (6865)	10/3/1998 3:29:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

We are talking about targeting ONE'S OWN CITIZENS in a unilaterally declared military assault. What did you think of Grant's siege and bombardment of Vicksburg? (Which was approved by Lincoln?) I guess you won't like that question much, given your outrage that Clinton made reference to our own civil war. I recall that the Russians very much were saying it was a civil war issue, and that they would not allow groups within what Russia considered its core territory to unilaterally secede. Since the USSR had just broken up, peacefully, and Russia HAD allowed lots of territory IT REGARDED as less intrinsically part of mother Russia to leave the fold, including the Ukraine and the Baltic states, there was some reason for the U.S. to not try to push it too much. I think we regarded Russian military and national pride as having been more than a little frayed at the time. I do recall Clinton's reference to the U.S. civil war, and that I thought it was apt at the time. It goes right to the heart of the basic issue -- which is that under international law and the current moral climate, there is a huge distinction made between intervening in an internal dispute, including one that involves a region seeking to break off from a larger nation or even a union of states and gain its independence, and intervening to roll back international aggression. I think Clinton was trying to convey that concept simply and graphically. Now I'm not saying there were any great moral issues beyond preserving the union on Russia's side in the Chechen situation, such as the issue of slavery. However it is also true that preserving the union was much more important to Lincoln than eliminating slavery all at once. (His pre-war vision was the gradual reduction in voting power of the South in the Union by allowing only new free and not new slave states to join -- and hence the eventual roll back of the "peculiar institution".) It may be that the moral case of the Chechen's for independence is compelling. But that sort of thing opens up a whole can of worms, all over the world. (The U.S., Japan, and few other places are some of the few regions where these issues are no longer big ones. Even a number of European states have their separatists; and in some cases, violent ones.) Outsiders generally wish to remain that. Outsiders. Kosovo raises these same issues. However, the Serbs actions have been so extreme, and so repeated. They are near the heart of Europe and very much within Nato's sphere. And, not incidentally, the Serbs are weak enough that the cost of acting to do the right thing is not insurmountable. Probably. Hopefully. (If they get really stubborn in the face of real military pain, how far are we going to take it? Unlike the situation in Bosnia, where the Serbs were concerned about real reversals of their on the ground successes at the hands of the Croatians and even the Bosnians if the U.S. destroyed enough Serbian military equipment, I'm not sure the Serbs feel so immediately territorially threatened now. So it might not be so easy.) I do hope people in the National Security Council and Nato are considering these issues with enough weight. I guess, ultimately, I'm willing to spend some smart weapons on the cause of pushing the Serbs into some sort of restraint in Kosovo. And if some Serb civilians die in the bargain (without being the direct target, but also without our totally emasculating our strikes to avoid the possibility), well, the onus is on Milosevic. And the Serbian civilians failure to restrain him. But would I support a ground war roll back of Serbs out of Kosovo? Not unless I became convinced it would be quick, and relatively cheap in Nato lives AND treasure. Which seems unlikely. Doug