First, the Srebrenica atrocity was part of the shattering of Yugoslavia, 1991-1996 not the Serb incursion into Kosovo circa 1998-99, hence not relevant to the example I used.
Second, there is seldom, if ever, a single reason for a war (even from just one side's perspective). Kosovo and Chechnya were, from the Serb and Russian points of view, the equivalent of sending the Marines into L.A. to attack the Crips' and the Bloods' bases of operation for their enterprises throughout the U.S. (in addition to several other issues; look at the distribution of land under cultivation in Serbia, and you'll note that the cradle of the Serbian identity is also their breadbasket).
I didn't say these were good anti-crime operations, but in both cases that was the central justification. Understanding this would have given Clark a much better starting place for negotiations. Both the Serbs and Russians had hammers, so their problems had to be nails...
Re: Clark's Lies... Lie is such a strong word. If someone is willfully ignorant, and repeats conclusions that don't consider all the facts, they haven't lied...
RA-President Bush and VP Cheney; yeah, they acted like GEN Clark, but- 1) this is nothing new from the civilian leaders of sovereign nations, who was that Roman who ended every oration with "Cartageo Delenda Est!" until the Romans delen..destroyed Carthage? And Nikita Kruschev "We will bury you!", etc. 2) SecDef Rumsfield; he was a bureaucrat who fell in on the boss. Right, wrong, or indifferent, this is what bureaucrats do, but again, a civilian. 3) Unlike GEN Clark, they didn't do it as military officers working outside the framework of the constitution at the behest of the Secratary General of NATO, in order to pursue a European agenda.Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld acted like Clark
Bookmarks