Posted on 03/11/2011 9:03:59 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
In 1999, when we launched the NATO air campaign against Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, President Bill Clinton had to state publicly that he didn't intend to use ground troops. He did so in an effort to limit the costs of an initiative that the public and Congress did not consider to be in our nation's vital interest. The administration and I, as the NATO commander in Europe, were in a difficult position, and Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic knew it. But what Milosevic didn't understand was that once we began the strikes - with NATO troops deployed in neighboring countries and the Dayton Peace Agreement to enforce in Bosnia - NATO couldn't afford to lose. And the United States had a vital interest in NATO's success, even if we had a less-than-vital interest in Kosovo. ....
In 1999 in Kosovo, the United States and NATO had a humanitarian U.N. resolution backing our actions. The American public was mostly unengaged, but NATO was able to wield its diplomatic power and the incremental use of force to compel Milosevic's surrender. (The coup de grace was his indictment for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia.)
By contrast, going it alone, without substantial international legal and diplomatic support, is a recipe for trouble. Our haste and clumsiness going into Iraq in 2003 - without a compelling reason to intervene, in my view - has cost us dearly.
In Libya, Gaddafi has used and supported terrorism, murdered Americans and repressed his people for 40 years. The American public may want to see him go. But his current actions aren't an attack on the United States or any other country.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We had a vital interest to stand with our NATO allies then but not now?
Did we bomb Serbia because they attacked the USA or any other country?
It's no surprise to me that those who bombed Christian Serbia to rubble are against using similar force against the mohammedan Libyans.
IF Wesley says no ...that’s all the info I NEED ... move in takeover, send the OIL HOME!
That was my first thought upon reading the title.
What do we as a nation gain by taking sides in this?
We gain absolutely zero. We don’t have a clue who these rebels are. We know nothing about their intentions once they topple Gadaffi. Why risk American blood for people who in the end may turn on us?
There is nothing to gain here.
You are exactly right.
We bomb both sides and take the oil. That would make a bit more sense.
Clark has been right when?
Clark is a grifter who understands that Obama has NO intention of acting and HOPES that Gaddhafi hangs on to power — lest the truth about the dictator’s decades long relationship with the Demoviks begin to come out from a fallen Libya.
But I have to agree with post #4 even more.
Let Muzzies kill Muzzies. Or let Libya split into two countries.
We were better off under Reagan when Iran and Iraq were at each other's throats rather than sending terrorists to kill our troops.
Wesley Clark might be a blind squirrel who just found an acorn here.
I stopped listening to anything Wesley Clark said after I saw him on a news show when he ran for President say the “This country was founded on Progressive Income Taxes” What a fool and poor historian. Plus after seeing his son cussing profusely it just turned me off.
Yeah, I believe he has some creds.
Now I felt the same was as the Weasel does about his and Boy Clinton's glorious war on the Serbs. What possible US national interest was served with our bombing Belgrade beyond giving the USAF some live fire training?
Reagan was smart enough to arm both Iran and Iraq so they would kill as many of each other as possible. That’s exactly why we should arms the rebels now.
Of course not. There was an even more compelling reason.
We bombed Serbia because a President needed to distract the press and the public from a.) the Cox Report, b.) Juanita Broaddrick and c.) impeachment.
See?
I can’t believe he is so uncouth to say such:
TO wit, the CIA and German BND were actively pursuing the Kosovo pipeline when they funded and trained the KLA in Kosovo, with the pipeline to be controlled by AMerican based oil companies. The pipeline was to be an alternative to the Russian control of oil/natgas heading west.
Since Libya’s oil pipelines are mostly controlled by Italians, Clark seems confident to claim Libya is not America’s interests.
Then what else was the interests of the US in Kosovo?
How is protecting the Albanian ethnics the interests of the Americans, and protecting the Beni Salim tribal ethnics is not?
Wesley Clark can have the title “racist” added to his honorifics.
Kosovo was a mistake. Thanks wesley for supporting the expansion of islam. You are such a joke.
I see you love him as much as I do...he makes me sick to my stomach even more than obama and that’s saying something.
don’t care what Wesley says, not one drop of american blood should be shed in civil wars in the middle east...they kill christians without a squeek from any administration official. No bibles allowed, screw them all...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.