I'm with you (to a certain extent) on Kosovo, but not Bosnia. The later was a blatant, murderous, aggressive and gratuitous land grab by the Bosnian Serbs (supported by the serbian serbs and the communist criminal Milosevic). The current dysfunctional mess, and the asurdly jur-rigged Dayton Accords, are the result of our failure to deal with aggression and ethnic cleansing early and forcefully. If we had done so (or even lifted the one-sided arms sanctions so the victims could have defended themselves without help from jihadis) there is at least a chance that we would now have several moderately stable and functional states in the former Yugoslavia that we wouldn't have to babysit for the next freakin' thirty years.
are the result of our failure to deal with aggression and ethnic cleansing early and forcefully. If we had done so,..
That's exactly right, we failed to support Serbia in it's fight against local Islamic cop killers. He was having the same problem as Israel has in Palistine, Russia in Chechnya, and many other places world wide.
A few words on Bosnia. Before the war, it was governed democratically by Croates, Serbs and Muslims. The Muslims, with a large birth rate, became the larger group of the three. They then wanted full control of Bosnia, not democratic control. That's when the crap hit the fan. We didn't let them settle it but went in and devided Bosnia into three sections. How long will that last?
Serbia itself has large percentages of Hungarians, Muslims, ect. and they get along and govern themselves just fine. They would also, IMO, do a better job in one Bosnia, than the EU/Nato landgrabbers are doing.
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m-col.html
All the facts are coming out now at the kangaroo tribunal in process in the Hague. Ref link.