Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Strangely, I'm under the impression that we intervened to "protect" the rights of a Muslim Albanian minority whose KLA had exacerbated tensions with the Slavic majority.
The Russians showed their consternation at our choice to intervene by sending their army racing to something like an airport in Kosovo under U.N. auspices.
I'm not sure how aggravating the Slavs balanced the "protection" we afforded to a people who were basically nobodies in Europe.
Therefore, I don't think even Bubba himself would claim it was done for strategic concerns..., and I don't recall hearing him say it back then (though I can't promise he didn't).
I suspect it was way more on humanitarian grounds, and partly a way of saying "hey, we're the U.S., sorry we didn't get to Bosnia quicker, but its certainly not our policy to let everybody in Europe kill their local muslims". The decision would be a lot more clear and justifiable if the KLA were not in the picture and the Montenegrans/Serbs or whatever were left without pretext for whatever killing they were doing over there.
Bottom line: I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue that it was strategic, and it wouldn't really be credible if they did, as all we did was align ourselves against the Slavs. Sorta like the Kaiser in 1914, but not so much the World's Lone Superpower intervening to keep the Kaiser and the Czar apart.
|
If bilmore has proved anything on this board, it is that there can be multiple facially plausible rationales for the same foreign-policy intervention. This
article in The Nation, by opponents of Clinton's intervention, disagrees with "the ideas and concerns Clinton invoked" in attempting to justifying the bombing of Serbia: "the notion of instability spreading from country to country (much like falling dominoes), the perception that world politics is a bipolar ideological confrontation between democracy and dictatorship, the obsession with reaffirming US leadership and resolve, the anxiety about the vitality of alliance commitments and the conviction that US security is tied to peace in an area of little inherent strategic importance"
And hey, that was only the second result on my first Google search.
Threaded Mode