> Sure the bombing didn't succeed if you think the goal
> was to prevent a "humanitarian catastrophe." But if you think the
> point was
> to demonstrate NATO's power and scare the hell out of other potential
> targets, then it looks lots more like a success.
>
[Seth Ackerman]
Although it did terrorize the population, the bombing pretty much failed on the "strengthen NATO" score, too. The Europeans have concluded that the Americans are incompetent and imperious; that they've been left with a big festering sore in their own backyard (and got stuck with the tab, too); and that further "allied actions" will only further alienate the Russians, which Europe is VERY concerned about. (Especially the Germans.)
Now, the Europeans are strengthening their autonomous defense identity. Electing Javier Solana as the new EU defense cheif was a victory for the Americans. But the long-term effects are to split the European away even more, I think.
Plus, the idea of Nato EVER acting out of area again is out of the question.
Seth