Posted on 11/23/2005 4:05:26 AM PST by StatenIsland
While Congress debates on the supposed quagmire of Iraq and the lengthy time it has taken to establish a democracy, word comes out of the Balkans that the Americans have finally pushed the Bosnians to normalize their own political system -- after ten years of military occupation separating the three ethnic factions that have threatened to rip each other's throats apart. The Serbs, Muslims, and Croats of Bosnia will dump their ethnically-based tripartite executive in favor of a true parliamentary system, much like the one Americans helped Iraqis establish in less than a quarter of the time spent in Bosnia:
A pact reached in Washington under heavy American pressure aimed to overhaul the creaking constitutional machinery that ended the 42-month war in November 1995, but left the country partitioned and dysfunctional. At ceremonies in Washington to mark a decade since the Dayton accords ending the war were sealed, leaders of parties representing Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, and Croats, as well as leaders of non-ethnic parties, agreed "to streamline" parliament and the tripartite presidency and "embark on a process of constitutional reform" that will strengthen a national government.
The ambitious US-authored scheme aims to turn Bosnia into a "normal" parliamentary democracy and reduce the role played by ethnic factors. The plan has been pushed by the US state department. Its progress is crucial to Bosnia's chances of entering the European mainstream.
On Monday the EU launched Bosnia on the path of integration, but made plain that it needs to speed up reforms to become "a fully functioning and viable state" if ultimate accession to the EU is to succeed. Yesterday's agreement, if implemented, should also bring closer the end of the international mission in Bosnia.
Let's make clear what happened here. We occupied a primarily Muslim state for the last ten years, trying to separate three different ethnic factions from each other. We initially went into Bosnia to quell a civil war and a genocide in progress, and then waited ten years for the kind of political progress that would make our presence unnecessary. Despite this quagmire, we kept our troops in the country and continued to work on a political construct based on democracy -- and we gave it ten years without loud demands for precipitous withdrawal prior to an effective resolution.
Now compare this with the hysterics over our position in Iraq. We have spent a year after the toppling of the Saddam regime fighting an insurgency while establishing a democracy designed to bring together three ethnic/religious factions at each other's throats. In two years, we have progressed much farther than Bosnia and will have the first elected, constitutional government at least a full year ahead of Bosnia's. Three elections will have been held before the Bosnians hold one.
Why did we stay in Bosnia for ten years? The long stay had to do with a lack of willpower to demand a resolution to the political questions, but the reason we stayed was to try to finally resolve a war that goes back six centuries between the three parties involved in the Balkans. For some reason, that has been seen as an American priority through two administrations. In Iraq, we have the opportunity to resolve a conflict that goes back decades in a region with undoubted significance to American interests. In the former, we gave ten years for our work to reach fruition, and in the latter a vocal minority won't even give it three before they cut and run.
What's wrong with this picture?
Well. This piece is logical, reasoned and based on factual comparisons.
Who here believes the liberals will comprehend it?
The 'Rats and MSM are also not at all concerned that we fly Warthogs all over Islamic Airspace, even over mosques!
Two meaningless letters... UN.
Yes, Clintoon, the military genius who got us into Bosnia, along with Maddie Halfbright, his chubby side-kick, promised our troops would be home by Christmas. That was ten Christmases ago. Why Republicans don't bring up this salient fact every time a Dem opens his/her complaining mouth about our troops being in Iraq 3 years after a real war, I'll never know.
You'd think that after winning a war we would have our troops home in a short amount of time. Instead it has become a quagmire, creating more animosity toward the US.
We need to immediately withdraw from Germany.
But we need to be honest: there are not Bosnian suicide bombers blowing up marketplaces and assasinating mayors in Bosnia. There are not 2000 dead "peacekeepers" in Bosnia. If there were, the whole debate would be different, so while it's right to point out that this was a long-term affair from the beginning, it's nowhere near the same as Iraq.
This is all about to blow up in our faces as the Muslims there are getting ready for a Civil War.
Mr. Clinton's war is still going on? Does he visit the troops over there?
What's our exit strategy for Bosnia? What's the time table for us to get our troops out?
What's our exit strategy for Germany? The war's been over for 60 years now... What's the timetable for us to get our troops out?
Mark
Ah, but you see there was a difference. Bosnia was started under Clinton and Iraq was started under Bush. NOW do you see the difference? < /sarcasm >
" There are not 2000 dead "peacekeepers" in Bosnia. "
Exactly so. VDH brought this up in a column a few weeks ago - for the Dems, it's ALL about the casualties. After all, what else is there to complain about? They've no stomach for them, as UBL correctly ascertained. What UBL didn't count on was George Bush and his base; he was only exposed to the MSM and the "intellectual elite" on the East and West coasts.
I guess we're not winning the war fast enough for them, though as Captain Ed's missive points out, their concern for time spent in-country only pops up when it suits them.
What we've accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq at the cost of about 2500 American lives is amazing and stunning - to anyone who wants to examine it objectively. That, of course, lets the power-mad Dems out, since objectivity is not their bag. And we did it without targeting the general populace or the destruction of cities. Again, amazing.
Islamofacism is a cancer that will, if left unchecked, destroy the body of the world. Unlike Nazism, which was a concentrated malignancy that we could surgically remove, Islamofascists are systemic. The cure lies not in amputation - that would be easy - but rather in a cocktail of disease-killing drugs, the principal ones being democracy, freedom and pre-emption..
Well said.
In it I make the argument that perversely/ironically PEACE MOVEMENTS make our military BETTER because of this emphasis on OUR casualties (the only argument that works on the U.S. public), we have relentlessly made our soldiers, to be blunt, the most lethal killers in the world while at the same time elevating their own safety to levels no military in history has ever imagined.
Thus the title of my last chapter, "Protestors Make Soldiers Better"
This is a lie. Clinton told us during the election in '96 that our boys would be home by Christmas.
Yep, it sure doesn. Remember when he sent the troops in? He originally said they'd be home by Christmas. How many years ago was that?
And this was a good thing? Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to let the Russkis sort out Muslims wherever we find them.
And this was a good thing? Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to let the Russkis sort out Muslims wherever we find them.
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.