A letter from Wayne Squibbs led to these 2 posts. The first was BEFORE the UN/NATO air campaign of late summer, and the second just after Clinton sent US troops. To: jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu BCc: Subject: Bosnia: Playing with fire Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 17:33:33 PDT From: Wayne Squibbs Subject: Playing with fire Jim, . I have some speculation of a serious nature for you to consider: Is it not a little absurd for NATO to mobilise forces into eastern Europe when there is the possibility that American forces could be withdrawn some time in the next couple of years to aid the government against a civil uprising? Take some speculative, but logical steps with me on this: Britain is throwing around more weight than it is worth. The UN lost its teeth years ago but is still responsible for having representativs from several nations currently endangered in Bosnia. NATO has taken potentially catalytic action which, with the withdrawal of American troops could lead to a very bitterly faught war. So, if America was to fragment, leaving NATO drastically weakened during a time of need. The ensuing turmoil in America - as you have suggested - may involve inter-state wars. How long would it be before Russia would get involved? With the removal of the American and UN threats, Russia could quite easily take on NATO in an attempt to reclaim Bosnia for itself. The recent earthquake in Russia will probably have damaged the economy by now but such a threat has to wait for the fragmentation of America anyway.---WS I think the European policy on Bosnia should proceed without reference to the USA. When Bush thought US interests were put in jeopardy by Iraq, he orchestrated a "UN" response, and crushed the 4th largest army in the world in hours. Whether or not one agrees on the wisdom or morality of the Gulf War, its EFFECTIVENESS was impressive!! ---JEB There is another part to the equation: Picture it: America at war with itself. Nato (possibly without French involvement - which also may weaken the moves currently being carried out later this week when France makes an official stand (or not)) pitted against Bosnian Serbs with the possibility of Russian involvement. Who, at this point could realise a dream? - Saddam Hussein. The unofficial leader of Iraq could take the middle eastern countries into a holy war by mounting a surprise attack on Israel. Israel is fairly advanced though, and has nuclear capabilities. With all these goings on, the worst outcome would be a global human catastrophie. Even now, John Major is making threats to the Bosnian serbs. Which, if France and America are not behind him could plunge Britain into more trouble than it ever dreamed of. I'd like to know what the hell JM is playing at - he will get all the hostaged killed with his bully-boy tactics. Those are UN hostages. i.e. Not just a British concern. But JM is on his high horse now because x Brits have been taken hostage. I never knew why the UN didn't just invite the red army back in to rule the place with the iron fist it used in the past - there was no war back then. The entire nation is irresponsible and deserves to be suppressed by communist powers. It is the most logical solution - and the best for the sake of the innocent people out there - to put them under the charge of a no-nonesense government. They obviously cannot look after themselves.---WS HOW TO DO IT! I don't think it is either practical or moral to try to have any outsiders govern either Bosnia or any of the former Yugoslavia. They MUST govern themselves. BUT the "UN" could help them get started. I will outline HOW they could do it. But, in the manner of G. Gordon Liddy, (I don't ADVOCATE shooting ATF agents, but ...) if you decide to, here is HOW. First, it must be European leadership: John Major and the new French guy Chirac would have to do what Bush did after the invasion of Kuwait. It was stupid to bomb a Bosian Serb army (BSA) ammo dump while there were hundreds of UN soldiers there to become captured. Step one would be to withdraw the Blue Hats to defendable positions, and line up a token coalition of "UN" forces. The "problem" is primarily the Bosnian Serbs, and the goal is the establishment of the stable countries of Slovenia, Croiatia, Serbia and Bosnia with a peace treaty between them. To do this, the "UN" (England and France, plus other NATO countries, with only token US help, and with Russian support) must act to isolate the BS from Serbia. The showdown must be between the WORLD vs the Bosnian Serbs, not the Slavs vs Western Europe.(just as Saddam Hussian wanted the Gulf War to be the Western Imperialists vs the Arabs, but Bush, by involving Egypt and Saudi Arabia, made it into The World vs Iraq.) Then when the political coalition is lined up, a military force of at least several hundred thousand troops and massive air power must be assembled. THEN is the time to bomb BS ammo dumps, tanks, trucks etc. A several week long intensive bombing campaign of a thousand sorties per day until every known BSA military target has been destroyed. THEN move in the troops to establish the authority of the Bosnian government, and let them run the country. This is one of the worst places in the world to get stuck in a guerrilla war. Even Nazi Germany had a hard time trying to subdue them. The operation must be fast and then turned over to locals, while most of the people see the "UN" as bringing peace, and not as foreign invaders. And the outcome must be clear to everyone before it even starts. Bush pulled off his "UN" war 5 years ago. Can John Major, or the French, or any European leader do the same today?---JEB ,,,,,,, _________ooo__(_O O_)__ooo___________________________________ (_) For a good time see http://www.primenet.com/~rks/stcroix/stcroix.html (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) University of Wisconsin, Madison USA Post #2: US Troops to Bosnia? Clinton will send 20,000 US troops as part of the NATO I-FOR to enforce the Dayton Peace treaty in Bosnia. Bob Dole is supporting the decision and Newt Gingrich is not going to oppose it. Phil Gramm and Pat Buchanan have spoken out against it. Is it a good idea? I am not an isolationist: it IS in US interests to have peace in the former Yugoslavia. If I thought Clinton's plan had a good chance of success, I would support it. But I will probably fail, and some US soldiers will die for nothing. Why? The PROBLEM with BOSNIA Usually, having the parties in the area work out an agreement is the best idea, even if they need outside help in implementing it. But in this case it is clear to me that they (some of them-see below) have come up with a plan that can't work even if NATO helps enforce it. This is because the Dayton plan is based on maintaining the same ethnic based governing units that have caused the war in the first place. They are already arguing over the boundary line between Bosnian-Serb and Bosnian-Croat areas, and the Serbs in Sarajevo are demanding to "re-negotiate" the treaty before it is even in effect. The area around Brcko, in the US sector will be another source of similar problems. The people who live in Yugoslavia have not been able to get along since the Great Schism of 1054 when the Roman Catholic Church split into the Latin and Eastern churches. And the later invasion of the Moslems made it a three way conflict. WHAT is the ANSWER? Is there a solution that could work? Maybe. Now that there is a Serbia and a Croatia, NATO (with US help) could enforce a peace plan IF the leaders of Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia all agree to it. The plan? Anyone in Bosnia who wants to live under a Serb government is given a one way ticket to Serbia. Anyone who wants to live under a Croatian government is given a one way ticket to Croatia. Anyone who wants to live in an Islamic country is given a one way ticket to the Islamic country of their choice. To those remaining it is "You are now a Bosnian. There is no Bosnian-Serb or Bosnian-Croat or Bosnian-Muslin territory, there is just Bosnia. You can be any religion you want. The languages taught in school will be Serbocroation and English. The alphabet used will be Latin, since it is also the one for English. All private armies will be disbanded and all heavy weapons turned over to the Bosnian Army". US troops as a part of a large NATO force MIGHT be able to enforce that plan.