Seth wrote:
> This isn't quite right. George Bush supported the Kosovo
> bombing. From the transcript of the second Presidential debate...
> BUSH: I think it's a triumph; I thought the president made the right > decision in joining NATO in bombing Serbia. I supported them
> when they did so. I called upon the Congress not to hamstring the > administration and - in terms of forcing troop withdrawals on a
> timetable that wasn't in necessarily our best interests or fit our
> nation's strategy...
Bush also threatened a withdrawal of US "peace-keeping" forces during the campaign but has backed down from that position. Notice that Bush's reasoning basically seems to rest on the fact that, since other NATO countries wanted to intervene, we ought to go along for the ride. Once the bombing commenced, Kissinger, McCain, and others who were initially not big proponents of the intervention decided that the US and NATO should go to any lengths to ensure success and demonstrate the continued viability of NATO. Given Bush's (time-worn Republican isolationist) rhetoric about the US's need to step back from its foolish role as the world's police man and instead focus on protecting our national interests, I doubt he would've been any more than a reluctant warrior in NATO's campaign if he'd been in Clinton's shoes.
> Kissinger opposed it precisely because he thought it was > an *unbrilliant* piece of imperialism. He's believed since the early > 1960's that NATO is ultimately doomed.
What do you know? As regards the former claim, Kissinger was absolutely correct. The intervention was so very inept if viewed as imperialism that it's a continuing wonder to me that a great many people insist on doing so.
-- Luke
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20010814/dc4f86e2/attachment.htm>