From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna
Subject: How Vulnerable are U.N. Ground Troops in Bosnia?
Date: 6 Jan 1993 12:16:40 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: sharon@unixland.natick.ma.us (Sharon Machlis Gartenberg)
 
>Excerpted from the Monday, December 28, 1992 Washington Post
 
>Nevertheless, that engagement--in which Serb pride was the
>only casualty--may have been the best demonstration yet that
>the U.N. troops most at risk in Bosnia's bloody factional war
>may not be as vulnerable as some Western leaders contend. ...
 
They may not be as vulnerable in some APV but what of their own
encampments? It only takes one direct hit on some sleeping soldiers
to cause a total uproar in their home country.
 
>[British Prime Minister John] Major's contention--as well as,
>to lesser extent, that of the French--has been that the
>destruction of Bosnian Serb aircraft, or their bases, could
>provoke Serb militia forces to launch revenge attacks against
>British and French ground troops helping deliver U.N.
>humanitarian aid to suffering Bosnian civilians.
 
Surely once the US (who seem to be the ones ready to carry out such
strike missions) under the auspices of the UN start making "offensive"
bombing runs, you are officially at war with the person that you just
bombed. If however, a no-fly zone was enforced then the aggressor
would be the Serbian air force which violates it. It is senseless for
there to be another aggressor in this war of attrition.
 
>Muslim advocates of intervention propose Western air strikes against
>Serb air bases, artillery batteries and other military targets in
>Serb-held Bosnia, and perhaps on their support bases in neighboring
>Serbia as well.
 
This is clearly wrong. Perhaps the "Muslim advocates" could also ask
for a couple of brigades to engage ground forces as well! This type of
action will only pit UN against Serbia where the "purpose" of the
"war" will shift from aggression to defence. It then becomes a matter
of Serbs defending their own homeland which can only ensure the war, a
war between the UN and Serbia will continue for years to come.
 
>This, the argument goes, would allow the Muslim-led government's
>lightly armed ground forces to engage the Serbs on more even
>terms; all the U.N. relief troops would have to do is hunker down and
>curtail their civilian aid operations. Bosnian government leaders
>have said repeatedly that they would gladly swap the relief
>operation for Western military intervention against the Serbs.
 
Now this is totally ridiculous. This sends a message clearly to the
Serbs that the world has decided they are in the wrong and that the
Muslims are in the right. This is not a decision for some New World
Order to make. The UN is supposed to be an impartial body (don't
remind of the farce in Iraq) and should try to remain that way. It is
supposed to aid in the settlement of disputes and be the "peace
maker".
 
The UN must ensure (along with other humanitarian agencies) that the
war is brought to an end quickly not by crushing one side but by
bringing about reconciliation.
 
The long term must be thought of when deciding on what type of action
is to be taken by the UN. Partitioning seems to be a favourite
solution for the UN, perhaps this may become an avenue for peace. Who
knows?
 
>The main threat to British and other U.N. ground forces would
>come from heavy artillery fire, according to the military
>spokesman. The frontline is about nine miles from the base here at
>Vitez, well within range of the Serbs' 155mm howitzers, and an accurate
>salvo could cause heavy casualties.
>
>But British officers here say that in a hostile situation, the
>Serbs would have to be precisely on target with their first shot,
>because their batteries would likely be silenced before a second
>or third round could be fired. The British army, like the U.S.
>Army, has advanced radar and thermal-sensing equipment that can
>quickly locate smoking artillery pieces and target them for
>retaliation.
 
This reeks of over confidence. A barrage of artillery may well be the
only shots made by the Serbians but it will only take a couple of
shells lobbed in the right place to ruin any resolve to find a
solution to this war.
 
>``The Serbs would be pretty stupid to take us on,'' boasted one
>British soldier as he relaxed here at an off-hours cafe where the
>video machine was playing an action movie called ``Beasts of War.''
 
They may be stupid to take on the British/French/US but all these
nations (especially the British and USA) should be well aware of just
what happens when terrorism is employed! Shooting with big guns at
each other will no doubt be to the disadvantage of Serbia, so when
threatened, some sort of terrorism (I am not saying they would stoop
to this level) may become the answer for them.
 
Comments welcome (email me) - flames you can keep to yourself.

Regards all.