I supported our intervention in Bosnia. The situation there was so bad, that intervention seemed the only solution. And, however imperfect its been, at least the killing has stopped. We are left with another problem, Clinton invited Iranians into Bosnia, and there is still a potential for Muslim subversion there, but that is a problem to be managed at the source, which is to say, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
As for Kosovo, I was very uncomfortable for two reasons. One, the KLA were well known as Europe's favorite heroin smugglers, and it seemed unlikely such folk could produce the kind of enlightened government we were hoping for. And, secondly, the whole thing was just unbelievably ham-handed, with the crowd in Brussels picking our targets for us, and giving the Serbs our target list at the same time they gave it to us. And, finally, the fact that we left ourselves no means of following up on the ground, had that been necessary.
The outcome in which the few Serbs left are being "cleansed" was also forseeable. It was an ugly situation, and there wasn't going to be a pretty solution in any case. So it wouldn't surprise me to see people coming down on either side of this. It was clear that the EU wasn't going to deal with the problem. It wasn't clear that turning the territory over to the KLA was going to make things better.
The situation in Haiti is different. The Duvaliers needed to go, and they were pushed out. But we intervened to bring in Aristide, who was a psychopath, and a murderer. There was no advantage to the US in returning him to power. So, yes, I opposed this action, which I considered to be immoral. A military government is not automatically worse than a pseudo-democratic government under a leftist murderer.