From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Subject: Re: Canada's voice in Bosnia Conflict (General Lewis MacKenzie)
Organization: Enea Data AB
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 15:10:41 GMT

Joseph Blazic (blazic@ecf.toronto.edu) writes:
>First of all, McKenzie was only speaking/could only speak about Sarajevo, and
>in several interviews he explicitly stated that he had very little to no
>information on what was happening outside of Bosnia-Hercegovina's capital.

At least McKenzie has been to Sarajevo. Neither you and me, and I
doubt the one who wrote the editorial in The Toronto Star, had been
nowhere in B-H.

>That is, if the military expertise can speak for more than a small patch
>of territory, one whose situation does not reflect exactly what is going
>on in the remaining 95% of the country (see above).

Do you think the military expertise makes their statement solely
on what they read in the newspapers? Do you think that they are
completely ignorant of the military presumptions in B-H? Do you
think that The Toronto Star knows better?

>As well, you have to make the distinction between "possible" and
>"Gulf-war easy".

To begin with, the task in the Gulf was not enforce peace as such,
but to drive out the occupier.

>>On the other hand, if we think that the cause of the Muslims and
>>Croats is ours, we should of course not be stopped by military doubts.
>>But is that really our reason to intervene? Has The Toronto Star lost
>>its thin layer of civilazation and become just another war monger?
>
>This is childish rhetoric.  I suggest you read all 130+ pages of the latest
>Helsinki Watch report on Bosnia-Hercegovina, and then reconsider your above
>statements.

Excuse me, but I thought Helsinki Watch was a human rights organization,
not a board for military analyses. Or do you allege that since the
violations on human rights are so severe we should intervene even
if there is little chance that it would help? In the latter case,
you have only proved true what I said.

If we are to intervene, we should do it because we are convinced 
that this is the best way to bring peace, not to let out our adrenalin.

>So it is "all or nothing" as far as you are concerned??  Since you are very
>confident of what _cannot_ be done, do you have any realistic suggestions
>for what _can_ be done to stop the war AND to solve the 2 million+ refugee
>problem?  Or are you 'civilized' enough to accept ethnic cleansing?

Do you suggest that since nothing else seems to work, we could as
well try intervention, despite the obvious risks of intensified 
killing of both soldiers and civilians? We don't even know if
ethnic cleansing would stop. Remember that seems to be a process
which is not non-existant on the Muslim and particularly the Croat
side as well.

I am sorry, I have no good suggestions on how stop the war in B-H,
but that is no excuse for going away with something which might be
even worse of what we see today.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
F|rst till kvarn f}r f|rst vankiva
Xref: sparky soc.culture.yugoslavia:8456 soc.culture.greek:8394 soc.culture.europe:8065 talk.politics.misc:43490 talk.politics.theory:4004 soc.culture.bulgaria:1330 soc.culture.turkish:9642