More on Yugoslavia

     WAIS mail to me features Clintonīs critics. Robert Gard writes:
     "It seems to me we made a grave error in backing Milosevic into a corner by issuing him an ultimatum that he could not accept. The stick point was a NATO occupation force. Had we been somewhat more flexible as to the composition of that force (we already have shifted to an "international" force), I believe we might have avoided getting ourselves into this pickle.
     When the Serbs withdrew most of their forces from Kosovo following the agreement last October, the KLA moved back in and occupied some 40% of Kosovo. The Serb reaction in breaking the agreement was not surprising.
     None of this is to suggest favoring Milosevic's recent actions, but only to point out that we did not, in my view, take action appropriate to prevent the situation we now face."
     My comment: Much of this is true. The Serb action reminds me of the conquest of the West by the United States, which thought Manifest Destiny had given it a divine right to the territory. I donīt idealize the KLA or the Indians, but there is always an argument as to who started the fighting. The American doctrine has been unconditional surrender. Perhaps we should have responded to Hitlerīs peace feelers, but that was not the Western consensus.
     The Hague War Crimes Tribunal has announced that it is prepared to try Milosevich in a mini-Nuremberg. I think one reason NATO must win now is that the Hague Tribunal must not be allowed to collapse.

Ronald Hilton - 04/24/99