From: stevan@alchemy.tn.cornell.edu (Stevan Vidic)
Subject: M. Rothbard on US involvement
Organization: Alchemy International
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:33:29 GMT


         Los Angeles Times, August 13, 1992 (Section B)
                       Murray N. Rothbard

                   AMERICA, KEEP OUT OF BOSNIA

________________________________________________________________
* People in plush offices are thirsting for  blood,  which  our
youth will have to supply. Why?
----------------------------------------------------------------

     Not long ago, the entire New World Order crowd, from the New
York  Times  to the New Republic to every "foreign-policy expert"
on TV, was defending the Serbs, who spoke  for  the  "territorial
integrity of Yugoslavia." Every Establishment article on Yugosla-
via was not considered complete  unless  the  beleaguered  Croats
were  attacked  for  being "Nazis." The Serbs, on the other hand,
were supposedly "anti-Nazi," this grossly oversimplified  version
of  World  War  II in the Balkans presumably defining their posi-
tions for all time.

     Suddenly, it's a differnet story.  The  same  old  suspects,
now  including  the  Clinton-Gore ticket, are denouncing the Bush
Administration for not making war upon the Serbs.

     Is there to be no conflict, no war, no problem  anywhere  in
the world where the poor United States, already declining in pro-
ductivity and living standards, mired in depression and  groaning
under  a  $400-billion  annual deficit, won't send its troops and
its treasure to set everything right? How long  is  it  going  to
take  to learn the lesson that, just as government throwing money
at social problems only makes them worse, so the United States is
not able to cure all the ills of mankind?

     As usual, it is the fat-cat civilians, the "experts" and the
media elite sitting in their plush offices that are thirsting for
blood, and the youth of the armed forces who are supposed to sup-
ply it.

     To his credit, President Bush is at least cautious  at  get-
ting  in a Balkan quagmire, reflecting the position of the Penta-
gon, which is very mindful of the lessons of Vietnam and Lebanon.
Military  experts  estimate that it would take an army of 500,000
to secure Sarajevo and Bosnia alone, and far more to try to occu-
py Serbia.

     As if our home-grown jingoes weren't enough,  we  also  have
the  malignant Mrs. Thatcher urging the United States and our al-
lies to give an immediate ultimatum to the Serbs. They must  com-
ply  with  a series of absurd demands, or else face maximum mili-
tary force. Those demands include  "demilitarization  of  Bosnia"
and  the  entire region (fat chance) and, in particular, the pro-
tection of the "territorial integrity" of Bosnia.  Thatcher  adds
that  the  West's  aim  should  be to "restore the Bosnia state,"
which must also be guaranteed as a unitary country, "not allowing
for its partition into three cantons."


     "Territorial  integrity"  of  Bosnia?   For  heaven's  sake,
Bosnia  didn't  even  exist  until a few months ago.  The idea of
maintaining Bosnia-Herzegovina as a unitary, multi ethnic  "demo-
cracy" is idiotic. It can only cause permanent trouble for every-
one. Since the Bosnian Muslims are gentle folk without much of an
armed  force, they have gotten end of the de facto partition, but
they should be happy, eventually, to take their ethnic areas  and
forget  the multiethnic nonsense. In the Balkans, there isn't and
won't be any "melting pot" or even a "gorgeous mosaic."

     Many of the mavens acknowledge that our  choices  are  hard,
that  the  problem  is  difficult, but they are prepared for Serb
civilians, young Americans in the armed forces and the U.S.  tax-
payer to pay any price needed for ultimate victory. But why?  Why
is the United States supposed to be  the  world's  policeman  and
nanny?

     Because, we're told, we have to stop the Serbs before it  is
"too  late." Too late for what?  My least favorite senator, (yes,
I know, it's a tough choice)  Joseph  Lieberman  (D-Conn.),  said
that  if  we don't stop the Serbs in Bosnia, then they will go on
next to Kosovo, and then maybe even Macedonia.  Ooohh?   Must  we
go  all-out  to stop them before they get to Skopje?  And if that
happens, the war will spread, Bulgaria and Turkey  will  step  in
(eh?)  and  then.... The rest of the sentence after "and then" is
always left hanging. And then what exactly, senator? If we  don't
stop  the  Serbs  in  Sarajevo,  will they swim the Atlantic and,
daggers in their teeth, invade Connecticut?

     In the space of no more than a year,  the  elite  that  runs
American  opinion  has  discovered  no  less than five "Hitlers,"
against each of whom we have had to be mobilized. Let's call  the
roll:   Saddam Hussein, David Duke, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and
Slobodan Milosevic. All have been treated as an immediate  menace
to the American Republic.

     You'd think that after a while this baloney  wouldn't  work.
How  many times does the kid have to cry wolf before no one takes
him seriously?


________________________________________________________________
Murray N. Rothbard is professor of economics at the University of
Nevada,  Las Vegas, and academic vice president of the Ludwig von
Mises Institute in Auburn, Ala.

[from LA Times without permission]

_______________________________________________________________________________


Newsgroups: soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna