This is hilarious (US foreign policy)

[Ned]

Kroeze, Perhaps. But if US planes and Cobra helo's were involved, the Serbs would not have stood a chance - this based on solely our record in Kosovo, Desert Storm and Afghanistan. I think our air power was very effective when Clinton finally unleashed it in Bosnia.

But, was the French commander unwilling to ask the United States for help. After all, Chirac, a Gaullist, was now in charge in France.

[chequita guevara]

Uhm, hate to burst your bubble, but the Serbs held out until NATO agreed to their demands. Look at Raboulliet and what the Serbs demanded, what the US demanded, and then the final agreement. Sure, the Serbs contry was wrecked, but they got what they wanted, officially. Once NATO took over Kosovo, they violated the agreement by allowing the KLA to chase all non-Albanians out of the province.

The other main factor in the Serbs agreement to leave Kosovo was that Russia finally threatened to withhold Serbian oil supplies. The Russians were getting embarressed by NATO's stomping all over Yugoslavia's Russian made equipment.

[Ned]

Yeah, but the question is, could the combination of airpower and Dutch peacekeepers on the ground have prevented Sebrenicia? Rather than putting up a fight when air power was denied him, the Dutch commander allowed the Serbs into Sebrenicia. Had massive airpower been dispatched, the Dutch probably would have fought and won. (At least is how the Dutch seem to be protraying the facts.)

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ned
Yeah, but the question is, could the combination of airpower and Dutch peacekeepers on the ground have prevented Sebrenicia? Rather than putting up a fight when air power was denied him, the Dutch commander allowed the Serbs into Sebrenicia. Had massive airpower been dispatched, the Dutch probably would have fought and won. (At least is how the Dutch seem to be protraying the facts.)

It would improve the quality of discussion immensely when you would try to read a post twice (or thrice) before you react.

I repeat: "With 'air support' as defined by UN rules....

According to UN rules 'air support' has/had to be proportional.
Nor was it ever considered to be the task of Dutchbat to defend the enclave, their task was to observe.

And according to the same NIOD report Dutchbat's weaponry was completely inadequate to fight the Serbs (or other armed forces on the spot).
The so-called 'safe areas' were NEVER safe, only on paper!

The conclusions of the NIOD report were devastating -for the politicians!

[Thucydides]

And according to the same NIOD report Dutchbat's weaponry was completely inadequate to fight the Serbs (or other armed forces on the spot).
The so-called 'safe areas' were NEVER safe, only on paper!

Very true. The UN just didn't allow the firepower necessary to defend anything, or even allow for any humanitarian aid that the Serbs didn't want transported (which meant that the UN had to hand of very hefty bribes to Serbians to let any relief through as they weren't allowed to use force). All in all the UN was about effective in helping Bosnia out in the war as Switzerland was in stopping German aggression in WWII.

[Ned]

Did the US have anything to do with defining the RULES? I can think that Clinton was trying to learn from the disaster in Somalia by keeping to the food distribution role and staying very clear of combat.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ned
Did the US have anything to do with defining the RULES? I can think that Clinton was trying to learn from the disaster in Somalia by keeping to the food distribution role and staying very clear of combat.

To my knowledge: NO (but I am not 100% sure).
The UN as a rule tries to preserve neutrality as long as possible, nor were most European governments enthusiastic to commit themselves.

Yet I think in the Bosnia crisis the Americans -especially R.Holbrooke- acted in a far more competent and honourable way than the Europeans, I am willing to admit.
And since I am not a friend of the Americans by nature, this is a quite objective assessment, I think.

All in all the UN was about [as] effective in helping Bosnia out in the war as Switzerland was in stopping German aggression in WWII.

I think the shame of the UN was far greater than that of Switzerland! Switzerland pretended to be neutral -though in reality it wasn't- the UN pretended to be willing to protect the Bosnian Muslims....

Truly a bloody shame!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Did the US have anything to do with defining the RULES?

Um... yes. Considering the US's position in the UN, the rules can't pass without US approval, and we probably wrote it up ourselves.