My record, from the Clinton Sanity thread, on the beginning of this mess:
The problem is that although the Serbs have legitimate interests in the region, and are in
fact sovereign, they have been unnecessarily oppressive towards the Albanians, who
constitute the vast majority of the province, and appear to be bent on decimating them in
order to either get rid of them, or bring them to heel. Beside, the Serbs sponsored
reprehensible "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia, and are the faction that most threatens the
overall peace and stability of the Balkans.(March 22)
The Serbs are the ones who have the most destabilizing intentions in the region, therefore
they are the one's who could use humbling. No one is disputing their right to Kosovo, only
their right to decimate the Albanians in order to drive them out or force them to
assimilate. If NATO cannot do something to prevent chaos in the Balkans, which will
almost certainly embroil two members (Greece and Turkey), will invite participation by
neighbors (such as Croatia), and will lead to another round of refugees streaming into
Germany and Austria, and, at a minimum, political and diplomatic turmoil among our
principal allies, then it will have lost most of its credibility, and aggressor regimes will be
everywhere encouraged. Besides, it is not clear that we can afford to let the Muslim world
perceive us as turning our backs on genocide involving Muslims, or leave an aid gap they
will be tempted to fill.(March 23)
We want to keep the "next door" countries out of it, frankly, because the tensions in the
region would likely explode if they were involved. Also, their military capabilities are
primitive compared to us and our principal allies, so we have a better chance of being
effective with a proportionate response.(March 23)
Ish, there has always been tremendous latitude given to Presidents to use force. That said,
it is customary to get at least informal approval from the Congressional leadership on any
major foray such as this, and it is disturbing that he should frame it that way....(March 24)
Clinton, and the European ministers, were indeed culpable for letting this fester, and being
merely reactive...(March 24)
With Slick, it is hard not to raise questions...(March 25)
As I have said, I am not sure that bombing will be ineffectual, but you are right that the
perception of Clinton hinders a favorable outcome, and that this is stupidly improvisatory.
I read in the paper that Clinton had no answer when asked what he would do next, if the
bombing didn't achieve its objectives. He had no idea and turned to Berger, whose best
response was "bomb some more". If there is a strategy lamer than that, deponent knoweth
not...(March 25)
Russia can't dictate our policy, but you are right that there were better ways to deal with
their sensitivities here... This whole mess is a result of Clinton's incompetence in foreign
policy, and his tendency to be reactive.(March 25)
It is not clear whether or not the populace is war- weary, which would play in our favor.
The one reason the current "strategy" could work is that expectations were so low about
Clinton's resolve that this might be more than ordinarily impressive. Also, as usually,
American, British, Canadian, and French troops would likely bear the brunt of escalation,
and they are all credible fighting forces. Still, I fear that this will drag out, and a loss
would be very bad...(March 25)
Serbia is the principal component of the rump Yugoslavia that is left, the other being
Montenegro.It is a populist dictatorship, with limited elections tolerated, but massive
government control over the media, and a willingness to abrogate elections if they "go too
far". Yugoslavia was one of the relatively prosperous Eastern bloc countries, having
broken with the U.S.S.R. in the '60s, and allowed a limited degree of marketization of the
economy. Plus, the West has given it various trade benefits since the '60s in an attempt to
woo it further from the Communist camp. I don't know about the economic situation in
Kosovo specifically...(March 25)
And this is our National Security Adviser? Fire the son- of- a- bitch!(March 25)
Ish, no argument. It is a situation where it would have been right to have bent over
backwards before going our own way...(March 25)
As I said, you may very well be right. I do not have a strong sense of the way things are
going to go, although I suspect that the Serbs are unprepared to have NATO actually go
through with it, and therefore that we will soon renew negotiations. This time, we should
make sure that the Russians are accorded a more prominent place at the table,
though...(March 25)
John--- I thought I should add that I doubt that it will become a "Vietnam", even if it is a
debacle, because I think that NATO will not commit to a protracted war. It may, however,
become a "Northern Ireland" for NATO, with the allies playing the British...(March 25)
(For what it's worth, Clinton and his toadies have said a dozen times today - no ground
troops.) By doing so, they have increased the likelihood of Serbian intransigence. What
morons!!!(March 25)
JBL--- What we need is a carrot, something attractive enough that it seems preferable to
continuing this conflict. My solution (still subject to revision, let me add)?:
1.) A disengagement force, committed to sitting on Albanian separatists as well as
preventing new Serb initiatives, composed of NATO and Russian troops.
2.) A moratorium on the Serbian attempt to enforce cultural assimilation.
3.) A fund to aid reconstruction.
4.) Permission for Serbia to encourage people to repopulate Kosovo, so that a greater
ethnic balance is achieved, perhaps even encouragement, to allay fears of secession.
5.) Help with securing the border against illegal incursions from Albania.
6.) A guarantee of continued Serbian administration of the province, subject to review
from the peacekeeping countries on matters affecting security.
7.) However, a guarantee also that municipal governments in the area will be constituted
from free, internationally supervised elections, and that there will be a substantial amount
of autonomy in their administration.
As I said, this is subject to further revision, but I think it may offer enough to all parties to
re-start negotiations.(March 26)
As I said, think "Northern Ireland", not Vietnam. Also, if NATO crumbles, it will lose a
good deal of credibility, which is a definite minus in all of this. Plus, of course, it is wrong
to bomb people as a futile gesture...(March 26)
I need to catch up on the latest, but it does indeed sound bad. The reprisals against the
Kosovar Albanians were predictable, and now it does look as if the whole thing is
becoming futile... I will say more when I am more certain of the situation.(March 28)
Trying to moot the question was anticipable, and our first priority should have been
halting the offensive. Instead we concentrate on punitive runs at Belgrade...
Moronic!(March 28)
I liked this, from a column by Ken Allard on the MSNBC site:"As that most prolific
author, Anonymous, suggest, “The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius
understands limits.” Unless NATO’s strategy reflects those same limits, than Operation
Allied Force may well end up becoming all that its acronym implies."(March 28)
Johannes: Milosevic is a bloody dictator...but my observation was contingent.
SUPPOSING that this action were well- considered and justified, we should have
concentrated on halting the offensive.
By the way, I have said before that I consider the sanctions against Iraq to be ineffective
and punitive against the wrong people. If Saddam cared about the populace, they would
probably work. He is dangerous, and not just towards the Kurds....(March 29)
On Stratfor--- I think that they are almost right. A NATO guarantee of disarming the KLA
would be worth dropping severe preconditions limiting troop composition, but the
Russians, and perhaps other Slavic troops, must be involved. Also, Milosevic might insist
upon an indemnity to repair bombing damage. If we can guarantee re- entry for those who
have been driven out already, we ought to agree. And we will have to guarantee that there
will be no attempt to bring Serbian officials before a war- crimes tribunal, regardless of
what we find. Again, it is worth agreeing to.
On your own observations, although I think that his consultation was inadequate, I
support the principle of latitude in these matters, and would not like to test the scope of
the War Powers act. Otherwise, I agree with you in spades!(March 29)
Les-- The main thrust of the analysis seems to me to be correct. I think they exaggerate
the degree to which nationalists have taken over in Moscow. Rather, no one can gain
decisive control over the national government, and Yeltsin, in order to survive, must be
flexible in making concessions. Also, I suspect that they overestimate the entente between
Russia and China. But it has always been the smartest idea for states challenging the U.S,
to coordinate timing, and cooperate in other respects if possible, and clearly the Russians
do not want to be counted out as a great power, despite their reduced circumstances.
China has aspirations to become the hegemonic power in the Pacific, but the prospect of
competition with Japan heating up into war, and the value of U.S. markets for Chinese
goods, limits their resentment of the U.S. role, I think. One reason why Russia has not
called for the dissolution of NATO, although it resents its expansion, is because they like
the U.S. to sit on Germany as much as anyone else; the same thing applies in the East.
Thus, although I do think that China and Russia would like to bring us down a peg, I don't
think that they would like us to abandon our role in either area.(March 29)
I know, the moronic Clinton administration is just speeding things up....did you see my
post about Clinton's denial that the increasing expulsions and executions had anything to
do with the bombing?(March 29)
JBL--- I think we can achieve some kind of settlement without invasion, although we
never should have declared that we had ruled out ground troops. What we cannot do is
secure a settlement without a massive presence in Kosovo, presumably in league with the
Russians, and perhaps Bdlarus and Ukraine. I doubt that we can avoid participation, since
our military is so much better trained and equipped. As I have said before, my gut says
"think Northern Ireland, not Vietnam"...(March 30)
JBL--- That seems to be basically where we are. Having created a bigger mess, and made
civilians pay for our blunders, what are we going to do?(March 30)
That is about right...I earlier outlined what I thought the terms of an agreement should
include, among other things, joint NATO and Russian peacekeeping forces; guaranteeing
not to try Milosevic or any member of his government for war crimes; undertaking to
disarm the KLA; allowing regular Serbian civil administration to continue, including police
forces, under scrutiny from peacekeepers; guaranteeing the repatriation of refugees;
helping with rebuilding in both Serbia proper, and Kosovo...(March 30)
I thought Bob Dole had the best idea several years ago, that we should provide the
Bosnian Muslims with arms, technical support, and perhaps some aerial assistance, so that
they could fight back against the Serbs. That might also have been done in Kosovo. But
the KLA is not merely a defensive force, it is actively seeking to liberate the territory, and
I think the only way to get a settlement that will prevent all- out war is to agree to disarm
it. (March 30 )
Sounds about right.... politicians should always respect military advice, whatever their
prerogatives to set goals. Morons!(March 31)
I think we should have gone with the Russian initiative. What harm would a lull in the
fighting have done, if we could have negotiated further.Plus, it would have gone a long
way towards mollifying the Russians...(March 31) |
