Howard Dean's thoughts on Bosnia

[RADAR1797]

Howard Dean's Thoughts on Bosnia

-RADAR


Topic renamed - Fingers

[Theophylact]

I'll quote Josh Marshall on this one:

But I don't think this is much of a contradiction, except possibly on the most superficial level.

The tenor of the whole Iraq debate has tended to make a fetish out of the narrow meaning of unilateral and multilateral. Both have their place. And I don't think it's a contradiction on Dean's part at all to say we should not have waited for NATO to conduct air operations in Bosnia and yet also mount a critique of the president's approach on Iraq.

Remember that in Kosovo, we knew the Russians would veto our plan. So we didn't go to the UN, but went with NATO instead. As Fareed Zakaria aptly noted almost a year ago, the US never got UN approval for any of its three major military engagements in the 1990s. And few significant players suggested that it was necessary for us to do so.

So why all the hollering now over Iraq? Some on the right suggest that this is because of animosity toward president Bush or a rise in 'anti-Americanism.' But it's not. It's because the US has begun playing by very different rules in the last three years. It has moved from being a dominant power which most often works through a sort of informal consensus to one that increasingly seeks to act through dictation. We've become impatient with the minimal restraints on our power created by our participation in various international institutions and agreements -- ones which actually serve to magnify our power. And nations around the world -- not to mention publics -- have increasingly looked to the UN as a brake on US power.

In short, the issue is not so much whether you get sign off from the UN or NATO on every particular thing you do. It's a question of the totality of one's approach to allies and the rest of the nation's of the world. By that measure, the whole situation in the Balkans and the current one in Iraq could scarcely be more different.

I'm no Dean supporter myself; I voted for him in the DC "primary" because the other choices were Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich and Carol Moseley Braun (although I gave this candidate* serious consideration). But I think he's getting a raw deal on this issue.

*Chris P. Carrot wasn't on the DC ballot.

[RADAR1797]

Just replace Bosnian Serbs with Iraq and it reads quite well ;-)

-RADAR

[Theophylact]

It might be well to remember what Bush said at the time:

The early favorite for the Republican nomination, Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, was the last contender to stake out a position, and his is the most nuanced. Bush said American troops deserve full support, but he stopped short of endorsing the decision for airstrikes.

"Now that the president has committed to use force, I hope he will do so decisively and successfully," Bush said in his statement, adding that "the ultimate question is: Will this military action lead to the goal of ending the conflict and bringing peace and stability to the region?"

[MTAtech]

As long as we are talking about contradictions, why is it that Republicans that are now so committed to "liberating the Iraqi people" were so opposed to Clinton in Kosovo? Weren't we saving hundreds of thousands of civilians from genocide?

Besides not standing behind a wartime president, something that they now say is required, this is their comments:

[Tom] DeLay, for example, said, "The White House has bombed its way around the globe. International respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly." As for Kosovo, DeLay complained that "no one wants us to be there" and that the president's effort "has harmed [our] standing in the world."
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...es/000254.html

Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-Calif.) accused Clinton of pursuing "the most inept foreign policy in the history of the United States."

Shortly after the military campaign began, Trent Lott went on CNN to say, "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." Lott, ironically, implored Clinton to "give peace a chance" and said the Kosovo conflict should be resolved with "words, not weapons."

[RADAR1797]

Well, we did not have to keep 10's of thousands of troops constantly deployed to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, etc.... for over a decade to keep this Serbia contained. Saddam was a long slow, taxing drain on our forces. In the next two years we are expecting to have less troops in the theater than we did during Operation NORTHERN WATCH and SOUTHERN WATCH. A short time investment will pay long term bennefits.

Now, why are you supporting Dean again? This certainly seemed like a contradiction in policy. Hell he is advocating true unilateralism, something President Bush has been accused of but is not guilty.

BTW, I hope Dean gets nod too.

-RADAR