From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Never again. How soon we forget.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:08:28 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug11.163322.3368@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <Bstt7z.A61@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>	This is pathetic, and somewhat sick.
>>>	See the "anti-war" crowd.
>>>	See them deny.
>> 
>>   I asked a few simple questions, like, what would be the precise
>>   mission of these troops, what military resources would it take,
>>   and for how long, why the Europeans couldn't handle the
>>   situation, what criteria would be used to define "success" in
>>   this mission.  I also invited pro-involvement posters to quote
>>   some military experts who thought that a military solution to
>>   the Yugoslav crisis was advisable and all I get is bad poetry?!
>
>	1) It's not poetry
>	2) It wasn't in repsonse to what you posted, but what Brian did.

  I know that, but the questions are still valid and the "pro-
  interventionists" are still evading them.  The one poster who did
  respond based his ideas on some truly nonsensical notions:

In article <1992Aug11.153253.8302@dmntor.UUCP> steve@dmntor.UUCP (Steve Pozgaj) writes:
>to Mr. Nelson's specific questions:
>
>>>>In article <BsqvEx.GMD@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>(By inference, question 1.) is:)
>>>   In fact he left out the first question ( "what precisely should
>>>   be the mission?").
>>>>>   2.)  What forces will be required to accomplish 1.), above?  How
>>>>>        many infantry, armored, etc divisions; how much air support,
>>>>>        logistical support, etc, and for how long?
>>>>>
>>>>>   3.)  To what extent should the US be involved in this?   Why can't
>>>>>        the Europeans do it themselves, or mainly themselves?
>>>>>
>>>>>   4.)  What is so special about Yugoslavia?   Why don't we see similar
>>>>>        cries about Somalia, for instance?   
>
>1. The mission should be to give the area a more even playing field.  Currently,
>the Serb aggressors have tremendous arms superiority, while the Bosnians have
>limited means of defence.  The Serbs have not only stolen all mobile arms
>of the former Yugoslav army, they have comandeered the arms factories of
>ex-Yugoslavia, ironically, also located in Bosnia.  (See, e.g., a more detailed
>report in August 11/92 Toronto Globe & Mail "UN embargo fails to halt flow
>of guns into Yugoslavia", p. A9.)  Therefore, some "evenly matched"  force
>must come in, knock out the munitions advantage (e.g. by tactical air strikes),
>and leave the Bosnians to defend their homeland on equal terms. 

  I think this illustrates beautifully why I included the adverb
  "precisely" in my question.   There is nothing in here that a 
  military officer could use to define his mission!   How do you 
  know when you've accomplished your goal?  It is precisely these
  idiotically vague definitions of goals which produce the longest,
  most frustrating conflicts (Vietnam, Angola, etc).   All a "level
  playing field" guarantees is force parity, which is to say the 
  conditions to extend the bloodshed indefinitely.  Find us a military
  man who subscribes to your "level playing field" idea of a goal
  in ANY military conflict.   In a war you want a NONlevel playing
  field so one side (hopefully the one you favor) can win and get 
  the war over!   The "level playing field" idea is what drove US 
  support for the ARVN in the Vietnam War.   It's what resulted in
  the carnage of WW I.  It's what kept things stable and bloody at
  the 38th Parallel in Korea.   It is true lunacy and if you're a
  lunatic enough to want a "level playing field" in a war I sure 
  hope you don't vote.

  And indeed, what do you mean by the Bosnian "homeland"?   B-H is a
  very jumbled ethnic morass.    The people who are fighting each
  other all live side by side.  Taking away the heavy artillery 
  will stop cities from being shelled, but will not stop the war.
  This is the central problem.

  
>3. The Europeans lack leadership.  That's what the US offers.  It has carved
>this role for itself, purposely, since [at least] WWII, where it played
>EXACTLY that role.

  What do you mean by "leadership"?   Leadership need not be more
  than political or diplomatic.   If that's all that's required then
  why don't we provide the political and diplomatic leadership and let
  the Europeans do the fighting?  Anyway, it's about time the Europeans
  started making some decisions on their own.  (time to "grow up and 
  leave the nest", as it were).


>4. Yugoslavia has played a special role since Tito broke with Stalin, and
>established a "buffer zone" between East and West.  That distinction has been
>blurring.  However, the people of ex-Yugoslavia have put their faith in
>American promises over decades, as bolstered by American economic propting
>up of a horrible economic mess, that America would "be there" to help in the
>fight for democracy.  So, where's America?

  Why should we be responsible for their fantasies?!   We never signed 
  any treaty to come and save them from each other.   You seriously
  overestimate the significance of Yugoslavia to the US or the world.


> ... As for Somalia and other similar spots, I can't claim to know, though
> your question is sensible.  I don't know to what extent America entrenched
> itself with Somalia in the past, along the lines described above viz. Yugoslavia.

  We never "entrenched" ourselves with Yugoslavia!!  You're a nut.  (not by
  any chance a Yugoslavian nut, are you?)   The US may have "entrenched"
  itself with England, or maybe Israel, possibly even Egypt, Thailand, 
  or the Phillipines, to whom we gave all billions in military aid, conducted
  joint military exercises, went to the defense of in time of war, or actively
  helped out in insurgencies.  

  The US was certainly more friendly to Yugoslavia than the Warsaw Pact
  nations, for obvious diplomatic reasons.  But our nations never had 
  the kind of close military, diplomatic, economic or cultural ties that
  would justify major American casualties.  



>  Any Somalis out there who can shed some light?

  This is a dumb question.


---peter


Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines