I never liked the idea of attacking Serbia. I didn't want to risk war with Russia just when we should have been patching up decades of mistrust. Though I'm no isolationist, the Balkans are a Eurasian problem going back centuries. All ideologies, ethnicities, and religions get bogged down in the Balkans. It's the intersection of strife.
NATO was tasked as a defensive force contra the Warsaw Pact. Sure, the UN is worse than useless, but any American action should have gone through the UN. Unlike Iraq, there was no long history of U.S. involvement and conflict in the Balkans.
Like most people, all I knew was what I saw in the news. So it seemed a bit strange when the "mass genocide" didn't turn up but one mass grave (8,000 bodies, no women and children) after the war.
Former NY Times Reporter: '93 Pulitzer Should Be Revoked
By Sherrie Gossett
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
March 22, 2006
Bill Clinton's legacy will haunt our relations with Russia for centuries.
During his recent appearance at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Binder said it would take "at least a decade" before historians "clear out that wretched underbrush of lies and concoctions" from "despicable" politicians "like Richard Holbrooke," an international negotiator during the administration of former President Bill Clinton and "certainly the journalists" criticized in Brock's book. The rise of blogs and media watchdog groups offers a "corrective" for the public now, Binder contended.
I linked this in a previous post. What did Bill Clinton get out of the attack on Serbia? I can think of some very wealthy desert dwellers who might have been very grateful ($$$).