Replies

Unless you want to call my friends and fellow officers/NCOs liars, since you already called us despots.

Unless you have friends running the neo-con foreign policy in the White House, I never called them despots.

do we have, in your view, a right to self-defense?

Self-defense is precisely right. And there was never any self-defense of the US in Kosovo.

If you think we do, then why can't we go after those who trained those who attack us, financed them, and actively broke every aspect of a cease-fire/sanctions treaty they signed with us and our allies?

Just when did Slobodan Milosevic attack the US or finance anyone who did? I think you have him mixed up with his enemies, the KLA.

But as for Kosovo, much of that sector belongs to Europe's forces and Europe gained much of the responsibility for rebuilding it. What should we do with a mere 2000-2500 troops on the ground, especially since we probably will be pulling out of Bosnia/Kosovo soon?

You seem to be admitting that we were in a no-win situation over in the Balkans. So what were we doing there, and as you say, why shouldn't we leave it up to the Europeans?

Whatever a neo-con is.. wasn't it a word Gephart made up? So "neo-cons" are evil for proactivly defending the US against terrorists? But, looking at your further posts, you attack US policy in Bosnia/Kosovo so Clinton would be a "despot" by those standards. So is Clinton a neo-con?

Was there self-defense in Kosovo? I thought I was asking about fighting terrorists. Did you lose something or someone in Kosovo? You seem fixed on it and the KLA. No, there was no direct threat Serbia posed to the US. However, due to the nature of Milosovic, the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, and the nature of European wars revolving around that region, we went in with NATO. We were a lead force because the US armed forces could be trusted to not engage in rape, torcher, and other crimes UN "peacekeepers" engaged in. Any US soldier caught doing these things is thrown into a dark prison called Leavenworth for a very long time, unless he is executed. The NATO involvement was sanctioned, if under diress from Europe and the UN, by the leaders of the factions. That is not, however, what we are talking about here. We are talking about the right to defend ourselves against a force that is capable of, and has attacked the US mainland, our embasies, and our armed forces in neutral ports and countries.

As for thinking we are in a "no-win" situation in the Balklans, you seem to have confused what I meant (the problem with typed messages). Our mission there was to stop the atrocities and separate the factions. The goal was to allow them the chance for peace and freedom. I would argue that Clinton, Europe, and the UN made this difficult for the soldier on the ground to accomplish, but we did succeed. The factions were separated, and the factions have a chance to rebuild and become productive members of the 21st century. Nowhere in my orders did it say "guarantee they will not go back to war". You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. We showed them a better way and dumped a lot of money and resources into the region, now it's up to them, just as it will be up to the Iraqis and Afgans. Just as it was up to post WWII Germany and Japan.

But please remember my questions were framed for the war on terror, not the balklans.

"Leave it to the Europeans"

Have you ever considered why Europe is in the condition it is in now? Could it be that after centuries of nations battling nations, some other country stepped in and showed them how they could live for the most part without war. Do you think it would be possible for that the European Union would have ever seen the light of day without the occupation of the countries that seemed to generate the most problems for the rest of Europe?

A stablizing force was necessary there, as it is now in the Mid-east. There are things we could be doing better, but is far better that we are doing what we are rather than waiting for another attack on our home.