About Bosnia

[Griff]

Brendan O'Neill has an interesting piece in the Spectator on the consequences of US-backed mujahedin being moved from irrelevent Afghanistan to Bosnia to fight the Serbs.



It would appear that when it comes to Bosnia, many in the West have a moral blind spot. For some commentators, particularly liberal ones, Western intervention in Bosnia was a Good Thing — except that, apparently, there was too little of it, offered too late in the conflict. Many journalists and writers demanded intervention in Bosnia and Western support for the Muslims. In many ways, this was their war, where they played an active role in encouraging further intervention to enforce ‘peace’ among the former Yugoslavia’s warring factions. Consequently, they often overlook the downside to this intervention and its divisive impact on the Balkans. Western intervention in Bosnia, it would appear, has become an unquestionably positive thing, something that is beyond interrogation and debate.


The word for the day is intervention, avoid it.

[Torrere]

Intervening interventionists need to intervene because intervention, when intervened, intervenes with intervention, which is a Good Thing, just like intervention.

intervention intervention intervention
intervention intervention intervention
intervention intervention intervention

Hurray! Sing along now!

Oh. Yeah. Why were they moving from Afghanistan to Bosnia? I wonder if they might have been trying to coalesce the mujahadeen into a coherent force, and deny them their ties to the common people. By doing so, they might have been trying to reduce Afghani warlordism (and failing). Or they might simply have been abusing the free army that they had made during the Afghan War.

Aren't we all glad that our government screwed that one up?

(Note: About half of [the post-sillyness portion of] this post was written not realizing the time frame of the troop movements, but I tried to keep it there. Is it still relevent?)