Return-Path: phssvb@unix.cc.emory.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.hellas
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:03:41 -0800
Reply-To:     phssvb@UNIX.CC.EMORY.EDU
From:         phssvb@UNIX.CC.EMORY.EDU
Subject:      OI APOPSEIS TOU PENTAGWNOY GIA THN KRISH STA BOSNIA: Collin
              Powell article in NYT, TODAY
Comments: To: hellas@brownvm.brown.edu,
              macedonia%husc.harvard.edu@venus.ycc.yale.edu

Apo to S.C.Ygo
============

The New York Times

Op-Ed, Thursday, October 8, 1992, page A35

Why Generals Get Nervous


By Colin L.Powel,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff


Dateline: Washington.

     There has been a spate of commentary recently
over the use of American military force to deal with the
vexing problems of an untidy post-cold war world.  The mili-
tary has been criticized for being too reluctant to use force.
In a recent editorial, for example, The New York Times
suggested that the military has a "no can do" attitude and
asked whether America is getting a fair return on its defense,
investment.
     The editorial even reached back to the famous exchange
between President Lincoln and General McClellan urging the
Civil War.  Lincoln, frustrated with McClellan's slowness in
engaging the enemy, told him, "If you don't want to use the
Army, I should like to borrow it for a while."
     Let me respond by reviewing a little more recent history.
During the past three years U.S. armed forces have been used
repeatedly to defend our interests and achieve our political
objectives.  In December 1989, a dictator was removed from
power in Panama.  In that same month, when a coup threatened
to topple democracy in the Philippines, a limited use of force
helped prevent it.
     In January 1991, a daring night raid rescued our embassy
in Somalia. That same month, we rescued stranded foreigners
and protected our embassy in Liberia.  We waged a major war in
the Persian Gulf to liberate Kuwait.  Moreover, we have used
our forces for humanitarian relief operations in Iraq,
Somalia, Bangladesh, Russia and Bosnia.  American C-130
aircraft are part of the relief effort in Sarajevo.
     All of these operations had one thing in common: they
were successful. There have been no Bay of Pigs, failed desert
raids, Beirut bombings, and no Vietnams.  Today, American
troops around the world are protecting the peace in Europe,
the Persian Gulf, Korea, Cambodia, the Sinai and the western
Sahara.
     Unwilling to use the armed forces? Tell that to our
troops who are constantly being deployed to accomplish these
missions.  Americans know they are getting a hell of a return
on their defense investment, even as the critics shout for
imprudent reductions that would gut the armed forces.
     The reason for our success is that in every instance we
have carefully matched the use of military force to our
political objectives.  President Bush, more than any other
recent President, understands the proper use of military
force.  In every instance, he has made sure that the objective
was clear and that we knew what we were getting into.  We owe
it to the men and women who go in harm's way to make sure that
their lives are not squandered for unclear purposes.
     Military men and women recognize more than most people
that not every situation will be crystal clear.  We can and do
operate in murky, unpredictable circumstances.  We offer a
range options.  But we also recognize that military force is
not always the right answer.  If force is used imprecisely or
out of frustration rather than clear analysis, the situation
can be made worse.
     Decisive means and results are always to be preferred,
even if they are not always possible.  So you bet I get
nervous when so-called experts suggest that all we need is a
little surgical bombing or a limited attack.  When the desired
result isn't obtained, a new set of experts then comes forward
with talk of a little escalation.  History has not been kind
to this approach.
     The crisis in Bosnia is especially complex.  Our policy
and the policy of the international community have been to
assist in providing humanitarian relief to the victims of that
terrible conflict, one with deep ethnic and religious roots
that go back a thousand years.  The solution must ultimately
be a political one.  Deeper military involvement beyond hu-
manitarian purposes requires great care and a full examination
of possible outcomes.  That is what we have been doing.
     Whatever is decided on this or the other challenges that
will come along, Americans can be sure that their armed forces
will be ready, willing and able to accomplish the mission.
    Finally, allow me to set the record straight on President
Lincoln's frustration with General McClellan.  Lincoln's
problem with McClellan was that McClellan would not use the
overwhelming force available to him to achieve a decisive
result.  Lincoln had set out clear political objectives.
McClellan acted in a limited, inconclusive way.
    We have learned the proper lessons history, even If
some journalists have not.


=======
Spiros
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU