Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clinton-approved Iranian arms transfers help turn Bosnia into militant Islamic base

Posted on 09/10/2004 12:52:24 PM PDT by LjubivojeRadosavljevic

Introduction and Summary

In late 1995, President Bill Clinton dispatched some 20,000 U.S. troops to Bosnia-Hercegovina as part of a NATO-led "implementation force" (IFOR) to ensure that the warring Muslim, Serbian, and Croatian factions complied with provisions of the Dayton peace plan. [NOTE: This paper assumes the reader is acquainted with the basic facts of the Bosnian war leading to the IFOR deployment. For background, see RPC's "Clinton Administration Ready to Send U.S. Troops to Bosnia, "9/28/95," and Legislative Notice No. 60, "Senate to Consider Several Resolutions on Bosnia," 12/12/95] Through statements by Administration spokesmen, notably Defense Secretary Perry and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Shalikashvili, the president firmly assured Congress and the American people that U.S. personnel would be out of Bosnia at the end of one year. Predictably, as soon as the November 1996 election was safely behind him, President Clinton announced that approximately 8,500 U.S. troops would be remaining for another 18 months as part of a restructured and scaled down contingent, the "stabilization force" (SFOR), officially established on December 20, 1996.

SFOR begins its mission in Bosnia under a serious cloud both as to the nature of its mission and the dangers it will face. While IFOR had successfully accomplished its basic military task -- separating the factions' armed forces -- there has been very little progress toward other stated goals of the Dayton agreement, including political and economic reintegration of Bosnia, return of refugees to their homes, and apprehension and prosecution of accused war criminals. It is far from certain that the cease-fire that has held through the past year will continue for much longer, in light of such unresolved issues as the status of the cities of Brcko (claimed by Muslims but held by the Serbs) and Mostar (divided between nominal Muslim and Croat allies, both of which are currently being armed by the Clinton Administration). Moreover, at a strength approximately one-third that of its predecessor, SFOR may not be in as strong a position to deter attacks by one or another of the Bosnian factions or to avoid attempts to involve it in renewed fighting: "IFOR forces, despite having suffered few casualties, have been vulnerable to attacks from all of the contending sides over the year of the Dayton mandate. As a second mandate [i.e., SFOR] evolves, presumably maintaining a smaller force on the ground, the deterrent effect which has existed may well become less compelling and vulnerabilities of the troops will increase." ["Military Security in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Present and Future," Bulletin of the Atlantic Council of the United States, 12/18/96]

The Iranian Connection

Perhaps most threatening to the SFOR mission -- and more importantly, to the safety of the American personnel serving in Bosnia -- is the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo. That policy, personally approved by Bill Clinton in April 1994 at the urging of CIA Director-designate (and then-NSC chief) Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, has, according to the Los Angeles Times (citing classified intelligence community sources), "played a central role in the dramatic increase in Iranian influence in Bosnia." Further, according to the Times, in September 1996 National Security Agency analysts contradicted Clinton Administration claims of declining Iranian influence, insisting instead that "Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel remain active throughout Bosnia." Likewise, "CIA analysts noted that the Iranian presence was expanding last fall," with some ostensible cultural and humanitarian activities "known to be fronts" for the Revolutionary Guard and Iran's intelligence service, known as VEVAK, the Islamic revolutionary successor to the Shah's SAVAK. [LAT, 12/31/96] At a time when there is evidence of increased willingness by pro-Iranian Islamic militants to target American assets abroad -- as illustrated by the June 1996 car-bombing at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, that killed 19 American airmen, in which the Iranian government or pro-Iranian terrorist organizations are suspected ["U.S. Focuses Bomb Probe on Iran, Saudi Dissident," Chicago Tribune, 11/4/96] -- it is irresponsible in the extreme for the Clinton Administration to gloss over the extent to which its policies have put American personnel in an increasingly vulnerable position while performing an increasingly questionable mission.

Three Key Issues for Examination

This paper will examine the Clinton policy of giving the green light to Iranian arms shipments to the Bosnian Muslims, with serious implications for the safety of U.S. troops deployed there. (In addition, RPC will release a general analysis of the SFOR mission and the Clinton Administration's request for supplemental appropriations to fund it in the near future.) Specifically, the balance of this paper will examine in detail the three issues summarized below:

1. The Clinton Green Light to Iranian Arms Shipments (page 3): In April 1994, President Clinton gave the government of Croatia what has been described by Congressional committees as a "green light" for shipments of weapons from Iran and other Muslim countries to the Muslim-led government of Bosnia. The policy was approved at the urging of NSC chief Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith. The CIA and the Departments of State and Defense were kept in the dark until after the decision was made.

2. The Militant Islamic Network (page 5): Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of mujahedin ("holy warriors") from across the Muslim world. Also engaged in the effort were several other Muslim countries (including Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey) and a number of radical Muslim organizations. For example, the role of one Sudan-based "humanitarian organization," called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well-documented. The Clinton Administration's "hands-on" involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials.

3. The Radical Islamic Character of the Sarajevo Regime (page 8): Underlying the Clinton Administration's misguided green light policy is a complete misreading of its main beneficiary, the Bosnian Muslim government of Alija Izetbegovic. Rather than being the tolerant, multiethnic democratic government it pretends to be, there is clear evidence that the ruling circle of Izetbegovic's party, the Party of Democratic Action (SDA), has long been guided by the principles of radical Islam. This Islamist orientation is illustrated by profiles of three important officials, including President Izetbegovic himself; the progressive Islamization of the Bosnian army, including creation of native Bosnian mujahedin units; credible claims that major atrocities against civilians in Sarajevo were staged for propaganda purposes by operatives of the Izetbegovic government; and suppression of enemies, both non-Muslim and Muslim.

Full Article: http://news.suc.org/bydate/2004/September_10/20.html


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: balkans; bosnia; globaljihad; impeachedx42; iran; iranianarms; islam; spahic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last
http://news.suc.org/bydate/2004/September_10/20.html
1 posted on 09/10/2004 12:52:25 PM PDT by LjubivojeRadosavljevic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LjubivojeRadosavljevic

For the full article:

http://news.suc.org/bydate/2004/September_10/20.html


2 posted on 09/10/2004 12:54:57 PM PDT by LjubivojeRadosavljevic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LjubivojeRadosavljevic

I remember reading about all this from the London Times sometime back around 1999. They even described much of this activity as being as serious as Iran/Contra....but of course, our media completely ignored the international press at the time. What else seems to be evident is that many of these arms also made their way into Chechnya...so I can't imagine Putin was too pleased with this little deal. Of course, he too, can't complain alot considering his deals with Iran.


3 posted on 09/10/2004 1:37:54 PM PDT by cwb (John Kerry: Still attacking Vietnam Vets after 35 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cwb

Yes, this just reinforces the fact that Iran has been, and continues to be, a major problem. More importantly, whoever the next president of the US is, Iran is going to have to be dealt with - and in a serious manner. They (Iranians) cause more trouble than any other coutry in the region.


4 posted on 09/10/2004 1:58:57 PM PDT by LjubivojeRadosavljevic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LjubivojeRadosavljevic
This is a seven year old report.

Subsequent events have shown that Bosnia just isn't quite the "militant Islamic base" or danger to US troops it has been portrayed to be in some circles.

5 posted on 09/10/2004 2:27:10 PM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LjubivojeRadosavljevic
nice find

also jives with the fact that our troops currently face a number of "graduates" from the Bosnian Jihad in Afgahnistan and Iraq

6 posted on 09/11/2004 1:48:25 AM PDT by ehoxha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite; Destro
Yup, tell it to our men and women who are risking their lives trying to survive in the face of Bosnian and Kosovo trained Al-Queeda.

Hoplite - your Bosnina buddies gave OBL honorary citizenhsip for C*rist's sake !

7 posted on 09/11/2004 1:50:38 AM PDT by ehoxha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite
But there's a lot of people who are not aware of this US Senate report. (That's why the SUC posted it.)

Not everybody is as smart as you are Hoplite (sarcasm).
8 posted on 09/11/2004 11:32:08 AM PDT by LjubivojeRadosavljevic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LjubivojeRadosavljevic
Nor are there a lot of Serbian Freepers aware that events subsequent to its publishing 7 years ago have rendered it nothing more than an example of the triumph of partisan politics over American interests.

Tell me, LR, what exactly has changed in American Foreign policy regarding the Balkans since George Bush has taken office?

Serbian interests, as enunciated by our Serbian Freepers, and American interests, as turned into foreign policy by whatever administration is in office in Washington, do not coincide.

Deal with it.

9 posted on 09/11/2004 11:47:54 AM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite
Examples of "triumphs of partisan politics over American interests" are going to naturally occur. It's just a question of who the partisans are an what defines "American interests." For example, the left in this country would view Bill Clinton's impeachment as a "triumph of partisan politics over American interests." (The right would see otherwise.)

The answer to your second question is obvious - all one has to do is consider the events that occurred three years ago this very day (9-11). We all know that the focus of American foreign policy has been (and continues to be) in Afghanistan, Iraq, and more generally in the middle east. The Balkans has not been a burning oval office issue for George Bush.

Your last sentence can be easily generalized by simply replacing the word "Serbian" with "Croatian" or "Hungarian" or "Russian" or "Korean" and so on....In short, you're not saying very much here.

So, how did I "Deal with it?"
10 posted on 09/11/2004 12:30:09 PM PDT by LjubivojeRadosavljevic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LjubivojeRadosavljevic
Yeah, that's it - the 9-11 hijackers were avenging the victims of Arkan rather than acting on Osama's stated goal of bringing America to it's knees in order to get us out of Saudi Arabia.

In short, you can "Deal with it" by developing a realistic worldview. Serbia's wars against her neighbors, where the profit motive of various criminal paramilitaries engaged in ethnic cleansing operations took precedence over any tactical concerns of the Army, and our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, where we're looking to install democratic regimes, are about as comparable as black and white. Serbia under Milosevic wasn't part of any solution, it was part of the problem.

11 posted on 09/11/2004 12:59:39 PM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite

[In short, you can "Deal with it" by developing a realistic worldview....

I do have a "realistic worldview." In fact, I'm quite certain of it.

So, in general terms, Hoplite, just how realistic is your worldview??

Somehow I get the feeling that you deem your view of the world to be more realistic than mine? (Or am I wrong here?)


12 posted on 09/11/2004 1:14:24 PM PDT by LjubivojeRadosavljevic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LjubivojeRadosavljevic

Which one of us is posting 7 year old material?


13 posted on 09/11/2004 1:20:15 PM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite
["Which one of us is posting 7 year old material?"]

Okay, as a statistician, I am very pleased to see that we now have a new measure for "realistic worldview." (In other words, you did a nice of avoiding my question.)
14 posted on 09/11/2004 1:46:45 PM PDT by LjubivojeRadosavljevic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LjubivojeRadosavljevic
Au contraire - I see it as being directly relevant to your question.

The material is outdated, and a cursory reading (again) reveals the concerns of the writers haven't been borne out.

Which gets back to you and why you're posting material on which the expiration date has passed.

15 posted on 09/11/2004 1:54:20 PM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite

["I see it as being directly relevant to your question.

No (your question is not at all relevant). And, it doesn't get back me and as to why I posted the material.

That is, the points you're trying to make have nothing to do whatsovever with how "realistic" or "unrealistic" (for that matter) my general view of world is.

I would remind you that you wrote that I needed to; "develop (in general) a more realistic worldview." (Right?)


16 posted on 09/11/2004 2:11:45 PM PDT by LjubivojeRadosavljevic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LjubivojeRadosavljevic
Ok, you explain it then.

Why did you post this?

Try to frame your answer in a way that reconciles your up to date knowledge of the situation in Bosnia (part of your worldview, don't you know) with the outdated concerns contained within the material you posted.

17 posted on 09/11/2004 2:23:51 PM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite

["Ok, you explain it then. Why did you post this? Try to frame your answer in a way that reconciles....

Hoplite, I'm you sure that understand that your asking me to invest of a bit of time so that I can provide with you the kind of detailed explanation that your looking for.

In all honesty, I simply don't have the kind of time. Thus, why can't the readers (such as yourself) look at the material and reach or draw their own conclusions - just as you did.

If you want to go through the manuscript point by point and make the adjustments (i.e., updates, addendums) that you deem worthy and subsequently post those changes then be all means be my guest.


18 posted on 09/11/2004 2:59:37 PM PDT by LjubivojeRadosavljevic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LjubivojeRadosavljevic
You don't have time?

How convenient.

Just out of curiosity, did you even take the time to read the material before you posted it? I might be working on an incorrect assumption in that regard.

19 posted on 09/11/2004 3:24:45 PM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite

Just out of curiosity, did you even take the time to read the material before you posted it? I might be working on an incorrect assumption in that regard.


I read some of it - not all. The article was posted on the SUC (Serbian Unitary Congress) web cite on Sept. 10-th, 2004. In fact, the Sept. 10-th date is actually part of the title.
Now, I assumed that because it was dated Sept.10-th, 2004 that it there would be up to date changes, etc. in the manuscript. That was my thinking.

By the way, I was really being honest when I said I didn't have "time." Kind of like right now I've got to get going.

L.R.


20 posted on 09/11/2004 3:45:05 PM PDT by LjubivojeRadosavljevic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson