Replies

Yep. This situation is absolutely a legacy of a Lord Hee-Haw and his little Stepford-General, Wesley (with help from St. Madeleine the Hideous also). However, that was six long years ago. Would someone care to explain why the Bush administration still has our troops on the ground in Bosnia and Kosovo propping up regimes that are tacitly supporting the creation of units such as those described in the article?

No dount Clinton, Clark & Co. are utter treasonous scum who would both go before a firing squad if there were any justice. But wasn't all that supposed to change six years ago? Wasn't there going to be a "new tone" in Washington?

Would someone care to explain why the Bush administration still has our troops on the ground in Bosnia and Kosovo propping up regimes that are tacitly supporting the creation of units such as those described in the article?

Only as part of NATO.

What was the alternative? A Balkans civil war spreading throughout Europe? Look what was going on: Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Kosovars, Albanians, and Macedonians were all trying to get their piece of the pie. There were mass expulsions of populations all over the places; Croatian General Ante Gotovina supervised the expulsions of 200,000 Serbs in 1995. The Bosnian Serbs were shelling Sarajevo from three mountain ridges surrounding the area. That sort of multi-sided war would have led to foreign intervention of one sort or another, because no side had the strength to win. Serbia wouldn't have; Croatia didn't have the strength, even working with the Bosnians, who they despised; and Bosnia had no strength at all.

So who would you have preferred to intervene? NATO? Or Iran? The U.N. certainly botched their peacekeeping. Remember all the observer hostages the Bosnian Serbs took?

That NATO intervention might not have been pretty, or wanted by the people of former Yugoslavia, but it was necessary to prevent a worse war from starting.

Some of us remember what was going on as well as the Serbs.

why the Bush administration still has our troops on the ground in Bosnia and Kosovo propping up regimes that are tacitly supporting the creation of units such as those described in the article?

First, the "regime" in Bosnia is exactly who found and arrested the terrorists. They are also the same regime who has sent soldiers to serve alongside us in Iraq. Second, we only have about 220 soldiers left in Bosnia, brought down from a high of 30,000 ten years ago. The EU runs the international force now in Bosnia and the Americans are under a small NATO element that is training the Bosnian military and assisting in counter-terrrorism nd tracking down the remaining war criminals. President Bush's Balkans policy has been a success in terms of drawing down U.S. forces, maintaining stability in the region, and increased cooperation in the war on terror. That's probably why you don't hear much about it.