Avoid Kosovo Quagmire

For the first time in recent memory, President Clinton authorized a military operation without the stench of scandal hovering over the air. Thus, unlike his previous misadventures in Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, his recent bombing campaign against the Serbian army passed without a strong hint of Congressional opposition. No Congressman or media pundits declared the NATO attacks an act of “Wag the Dog,” or other politically juiced euphemisms. Still, we should not expend our military might without consideration of the consequences. In this, Clinton’s campaign comes up noticeably short.

Naturally, many will argue that the Kosovo campaign is a humanitarian gesture. Such a policy implies a disastrous extreme. Who determines what qualifies as a civil war that deserves the involvement of Uncle Sam? There are civil wars raging today in Sudan, the Congo, and Sierra Leone, with thousands being brutally killed on a daily basis. While we are disturbed as individuals by these tragic events , that does not mean they involve fundamental strategic or political interests of the United States.

In a recent essay published in The New Republic, Charles Krauthammer succinctly illuminated the ill-conceived notion of American foreign policy which thrives in the Clinton administration: “Today the Clinton administration has located a ‘vital interest’ in Kosovo, or more precisely, in autonomy for the Kosovar Albanians. Not independence, mind you. Not direct rule from Belgrade. But autonomy, for three years, under NATO occupation led by 4,000 American troops. A vital American interest? What is going on here?

“What is going on is a total misconception of the role of the world’s only superpower. Peacekeeping, mending civil wars, or ... quelling teacup wars, is not a job for America. It is a job for Canada. For middle powers with no real enemies, humanitarianism can be a strategic mission. For a superpower, it is not.”

It is naive to expect Serbia to retreat quietly into the sunset just because the U.S. is flexing its military muscles. As New York Times columnist A.M. Rosenthal remarked on March 26, Serbs “think of Kosovo not as the property of the Albanian Muslim majority there, but as the spiritual, historic and religious center of all Serbia, particularly the 69 percent Christian population.” Even if NATO pressure forces Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic to the bargaining table, no guarantees exist that other Serbian extremists will back down willingly. Will President Clinton allow U.S. blood to be shed in the name of Kosovar independence?

While the U.S. must sympathize with any people trying to escape from under the thumb of a maniacal dictator such as Milosevic, we must act in a way to avoid, not escalate, bloodshed. The creation of peacekeeping from war-making strikes as a sharp Orwellian paradox: War is Peace. It does not promote stability, or the cessation of violence. If need be, arm the Yugoslavian opposition to Milosevic to install a more benevolent ruler. Do not, however, use the full power of the U.S. military to intervene in a civil war a continent away. Do not endanger Serbia’s civilian population— just as much a victim of Milosevic’s rule as Kosovo. And, at all costs, do not send American ground troops into another quagmire which the American people are not convinced is worth the loss of American sons and daughters. MR

This article was published in the 31 March 1999 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 17, Number 9).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.