Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
So, Bosnian war: was NATO's introduction justified, in your view?
|
Did we really go to war? First, what is the purpose of any war? To force the entire conflict back to a negotiation table. From earliest recorded history, that has always been the only purpose of war.
Example: how did Clinton finally step in and solve it? Dayton Accords. Milosevik was *invited* to a negotiation table in Dayton Ohio. He refused. And was *invited* again.
Clinton and Holbrook understood the strategic objective - get to the peace table. Milosevik was told he could not leave Dayton until a settlement was negotiated. Yes, the US kidnapped Milosevik. Who then negotiated himself out of a job so to leave Dayton.
Second, Bosnia was Europe's responsiblity. Europe failed. Once the massacres had been too often, too massive, and too extreme (Srebrenica, et al) then Clinton stepped in. The smoking gun was obvious. Only then was the British/French Rapid Reaction Force (and others) allowed to do their job. Clinton, et al focused only on the purpose - a peace table. He achieved a major victory using near zero military.
In WWII, mankind massacred millions to get to the peace table. People were massacred for only one purpose. To take the conflict back to a peace table. Notice how many had so little respect for human life. Welcome to reality. Only getting to the negotiation matters. If tens of millions must be masscred, then so be it.
Clinton (and smarter advisers) routinely solved wars without paying that price. Haiti. A near nuclear war between India and Pakistan. He even empowered the almost solved standoff on the Korean pennisula. And many lesser disagreements solved by negotiating long before any military action was even discussed. By solving problems using near zero military deployments. Go directly to the peace table by spending so little and never forgetting what really matters.
Why is that peace table impossible in the Middle East? Every time a negotiation approaches a conclusion, Likud (the enemy of peace) changes conditions or fails to meet commitments. Likud clearly does not want peace. As demonstrated by even their calling for the assassination of Rabin - and getting it. Likud was quite clear. The peace settlement between Israel and Egypt is considered, by Likud, a major defeat. Never again: their attitude.
Third - back to the point. This same Likud would attack Iran without any hope of a negotiated settlement? Any war that does not seek a settlement at the peace table quickly identifies fools. But then Likud is a perfect example of wacko extremists.
Only viable solution to Iran's nuclear weapons is a negotiated settlement. If military is used as Israel wants, then the only possible solution is an complete invasion of Iran. Boots must be on the ground. If Israel does not want that, then any Israeli attack is only a classic fool's errand. War fought for no purpose. Same Israeli extremists made the same mistake in Lebanon. Will they ever learn?
Only solution with Iran means a negotiated settlement. No other solution exists. So how does the world get Iran to that table? No other question is relevant.
Curiously, the powers that be in Iran are even detaining many of Ahmadinejad's people. Smarter negotiators might find a solution in that inconsistency.