I've noticed this, too, and have wondered why we haven't heard about this from MSM or even the Republicans! Is the left really this oblivious to the world around them to not notice all the inconsistencies in their arguements?

The left is not oblivious, they know exactly what they are doing.

Their main objective is to oppose, obstruct, and weaken America. They hate America and what it stands for, period.

If America does something in Iraq, it is wrong. If America does nothing in Sudan and Rwanda, it is wrong. A million other examples exist.

Conservatives are foolish to take what leftists say at face value. Judge them by their actions, not their words of 'peace' and 'justice' and 'patriotism'.

Once you recognize what leftists are REALLY about (not what they claim to be about), their actions are very consistent towards this goa.

What's your point?

Segregation in Bosnia was legalised at Dayton, Ohio, by the US negotiating team. The rise of the mujahedin around the world began with their arming and financing by the United States in Afghanistan in the 1980's (ever heard of blowback?). Mladic and Karadzic still being at large is essentially the fault of European countries who lack the will to catch them.

How is this a left-right issue exactly?

Agree that there is no point here. Also worth noting is that George Bush is currently the president of the United States and if he wants to do something about this situation he has been in office for over four years.

Also worth noting is that 5 billion taxpayer dollars aren't being spent to make the situation worse and roughly zero U.S. soldiers are dying per week there.

No, no, Joe, you've got it all wrong. "Quagmires" are wars started by Republicans, or started by Democrats who get cold feet after Republicans get elected. Wars started by Democrats are noble endeavors for the betterment of mankind; almost crusades.

But at least we'll be out in a year: President Clinton said so, and it wasn't a lie.

I don't see the point here either. For those of us who supported military intervention in both Bosnia and Iraq, this is nothing to be smug over. In fact this is a Bad Thing no matter where you sit politically.

Unfortunately praktike can't resist rising to the bait and being equally bogus: how is American presence in Iraq "making the situation worse"? Do you honestly believe the situation would improve if US troops started drawing down tomorrow?

What the hell, guys. Winds is supposed to be better than this.

It is, indeed... not one commenter with the historical literacy to note the source?

Though the Mladic and Karadzic situation is indeed a very large advertisement for the law enforcement model's limitations. Force and will are required to deal with such problems, and is anyone at all surprised to find them lacking here? Does anyone think this would be the only place such things would be lacking, as applied to the War on Terror and other wanted fugitives?

With that out of the way...

• Jeff Medcalf (#5) has a point.

• The jihadist problem is real, and its current growth is not attributable to a war in Afghanistan that has been over for a decade and a half. Nice to see the "Blame America First" gang out today, clueless as usual.

• Nice to put the marker down on ethnic segregation as being OK as a policy in regions of ethno-religious conflict. This is certainy a well supported policy historically, and often works. We'll keep that card, never know when it might come in handy.

• Again, though - not one person saw the obvious humour in Agence France Presse moaning right now about segregation, economic stagnation, high unemployment, and rising jihadism... in Bosnia? Man, you guys are slipping.

The "point", I think, is that the standards aren't consistent. Not that Iraq is "good" (or "bad"). Not that Bosnia is "bad" (or "good"). I'm sure that Joe and the commenters each have their own opinion on the matter, but this post isn't about that. It's about the inconsistency of coverage and the fact that the action proposed by opponents of the current strategy isn't even working very well where things are "easier".

Bosnia (obviously) wasn't/isn't on the same scale as Iraq in commitment, cost, or price in lives. It also isn't on the same scale in importance.

But even though Bosnia is "easy" relative to Iraq, the cost of failure isn't nearly as high, and the "international community" by and large supports the effort, things are taking far longer than planned and they aren't turning out as planned.

Ten years on in a relatively peaceful Bosnia and there's a long ways to go. Less than three years on in an insurgency-torn Iraq and there's a long ways to go. Why is the new big project such a failure and a quagmire in need of a deadline exit strategy while the small old project barely merits mention? Where's the consistency?

It seems to me to be worth mentioning that the concern of both the Serbs about Bosnia and the Russians about Chechnya is the development of radical Islamist Taliban-style regimes there.

This in no way excuses the ghastly behavior of both the Serbs and the Russians. And it's largely been a self-fulfilling prophecy: the draconian measures the Serbs and Russians have taken have fostered the very forces they were concerned about.

But the concerns should be taken seriously. I wish I had a good solution.

Oh I get it. Hahahaha!!

Those damn French/MSM...

And Matt-- this IS WoC now. Basically it's all liberals are traitors or worse-- "stab in the back" stuff (culminating in the entrily predictable, "Hitler was a liberal" post a little while back)

Isn't Bosnia pacification a U.N. program?

The UN is perfect. The UN represents all the people of the earth, and stands against Bush's cowboy capitalism. The UN can do no wrong.

If the UN is in charge of Kosovo, then Kosovo is a paradise, by definition. Matt, Pratfall, and SOS are all right. Clinton's Kosovo is treasured by the UN, pampered to perfection. Iraq on the other hand is a cowboy Bush project, shunned by the perfect UN and its lackey boys. Winds is better than this, come on--say it--the UN is perfect--say it.

Bosnia's problems can be solved by reducing its Serb content to under 10% the way the late President Tujman of Croatia did for his country.

Where is Bosnia going? I mean, is there any National Project or simply "we did not want with those Nationalsocialists Serbs in charge"? Because Independence... Bosnia is well dependent on foreign aid. Even in simply monetary matters they have always needed the Deutsche Mark and now the Euro.

I am not critizing them for it. I would not have liked to live under the Serbs' rule. But, well, now we must ask the question: where is the country going?

Economically they may manage someday to join the EU, and perphaps enjoy an equivalent living standard, but politically... what is the aim, the objective of Bosnia as a Nation?

At least the Jihadists have one, though it is unattainable.

Joe, you're making a geyser out of a cold spring.

"Fully 10 years after war began, Bosnia has not developed as hoped."
Hoped for by whom?

After reading the 3 articles, there is hardly the exclamatory aspect to them that you ascribe to them. Bosnia is doing very well, considering the war losses of its educated people.
Only in TVland would we see the kind of feelgood instant turnaround that perhaps you expect of Bosnia.
40 years after the end of segregation in USA we see how hard integration is. And there was no war to get over in the USA.
(Where are the Black NASSCR drivers? They couldn't wholy be bad drivers, could they??)

This businees of 'rising influence of radical Islam' whether it be in Bosnia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Indonesia, and now Egypt, has for decades been addressed by the US State Dept. Islamist experts.
Not that any stripe of government in Wash. has paid them any attention !
The Dayton Accord, pressed into place by foreigners can be seen as a quick peace fix, pushing about traditional values in that region.
Interventions by "the West" have the result of seemingly actualizing radicalism of one kind or another. This was predicted and is now predictable.
(Iraq was a secular outpost of its region. Any bets where it's headed now?)

Absolutely right. It is a quagmire. Why, a U.S. soldier was killed there by a mine, just yesterday . . . well, it seems just like yesterday to me, 1996.

Not to mention all those Bosnians dying . . . of heart attacks. Must be because of the MSM, or the UN, or Clinton.

You've gotta admit the post has a certain "Look over there" quality to it.

Tom -- where are Black NASCAR drivers? They are engaging in skill positions in other sports with a bigger social network and more in tune with cultural attitudes. NASCAR requires a "car guy" culture and you're more likely to find that among rural Whites than Blacks. Flip it around and ask yourself where are the White Gangsta Rappers, or NBA players, or NFL Wide Receivers (positions dominated almost exclusively by Blacks). Culture does shape behavior, as does economics.

Ethnically and linguistically, Serbs and Bosnians are the same. They look the same, speak the same language, and have the same general customs and manners. Only their religion is different.

Bosnia is JUST LIKE IRAQ in that it is totally dependent on US and UN forces for everything, and will be for the foreseeable future. Foreigners have to run everything, right down to local political decisions. Only armed troops keep various groups from slaughtering each other. Jihadis have free reign over the country and cannot be stopped.

Iraq a secular outpost? Was THAT why Saddam outlawed in 1992 Women from working outside the home? Why he publicly offered bin Laden sanctuary in 1994, and why Clinton bombed the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant in the belief that Saddam, Sudan, and Al Qaeda were co-operating in producing chemical weapons for Islamist terror attacks on the US? Please. Get serious. Saddam was like Milosevic, ready to whip up ethnic, religious, and social conflict to keep himself as President for Life. It is the signal flaw in Leftist/Liberal/Democratic foreign policies to put their trust in the "Big Chief" solution, looking for a chieftain be he Fidel, or Hugo Chavez, or Saddam to keep a society "in line" and under control.

The only things keeping the death toll down to "manageable" levels in Bosnia (i.e. not much reported in the news, here a group of Muslim kids killed, there a group of Serbian families butchered) is mutual fear. Bosnian Muslims are afraid the Europeans and Americans will just leave and they'll be slaughtered again by the Serbs in a "Milosevic Part Two" led government. Serbs are afraid they can't muster enough militia men to kill off the Bosniaks and will probably suffer casualty producing air strikes. Both sides are limited in resources and exhausted by War. But there is no fundamental desire for peace merely a mutual desire for an armistice while future hostilities are planned.

The problem is not solved merely kicked down the road; which is why the template for the UN/NATO model of "humanitarian intervention" is foolish. Right in the heart of Europe with excellent logistics and support, NATO and the UN can't solve the problem merely delay for a while the killing.

Muslim jihadis still pose a terrorist threat to peace, Serbia still looks to Russia as it's protector, and the West is still caught in a 1913 dynamic.

Jim Rockford,

RE: white gangsta rappers... I think we had the death squads hunt them down shortly after Vanilla Ice. If we didn't, we should have.

In addition to the points above, folks are urged to:

[1] Re-read Gabriel Gonzalez' recent post from Paris re: the French media, then go look at these AFP stories.

[2] Recall that the French were passing information to the Serbs during the war; they were not neutral. I'm a bit surprised that no-one on Winds had noted this yet.

[3] Consider what the very recent advance of jihadism in a Muslim country with a very different historical tradition historically tells us about the ongoing problem that fundamentally underlies our larger war, and where it points abroad. Hint: the problem almost certainly starts with "S", not an "A".

Winds is getting old... not a post evades intensely political leanings. Few have constructive ideas, and all too many scream about the poor liberals at fault, yet again.

What would you do in Bosnia?

Yes, granted, it's all the fault of FDR, for presiding over becoming a super power. We could still be isolationists if it weren't for that damn liberal!

Welcome to the failed law enforcement model for counter-terrorism.

What's the point of that? Was the non-capture of bin Laden a clever move by Bush, to avoid a 'failed model'?

Joe,

I admire the steadfast conservative resolve to consistently oppose the Bosnian intervention. It must be challenging to maintain that position while simultaneously cheerleading the Decade Of Interventionist War (aka the GWOT). Partisanship uber alles. Kudos!

(the above is quite possibly sarcastic hyperbole and not intended to reflect a position on the Iraq war.)

"I admire the steadfast conservative resolve to consistently oppose the Bosnian intervention"

Care to see the number of republicans who supported the Balkans intervention? The only difference is Republicans didnt try to blame their votes on being 'fooled' by Clinton when the entire region didnt turn into Eden within a year. Then again, Republicans are generally better politicians and realize that gullibility isnt the best defense to present to the American people.

The loudest voices against were from the left side of the aisle as I recall. I'd call them 'peace' activists, but i think we all know the last thing their policies bring about is peace.

IIRC Newt Gingrich and several other Republicans formed the core of US opposition to intervention in Bosnia. However Bob Dole, to give him his due, strongly supported it. Bob Dole was kinda the Joe Lieberman of Bosnia.

Catching the butchers of Srebnica has not occured because of the desire to look the other way in the name of stability.Politically no one has offered sanctions for the same reasons. It will be interesting to see if a truth and reconcilation trial is held. I am sure black ops have been considered but it is likely a case of a bridge to far.

As to the Jihadist's they were allowed entry because the ethnic cleansing was permitted for to long. Another reason to to change NATO. If they can'[t protect a nation against the scurge of genocide how can they be expected to protect their own nations.

I also am not to upset w/ the jihadists in this case. In America we have the second amendment to stop genocide form right wing nationalist fanatics. when we fail to act in our own national interest preventing genocide we can't bitch when the solution is more fanaticism

There were a few "Joe Liebermans of Bosnia". Like many neocons, I supported the intervention. I'll add that noting their support, and the converse opposition among both the Left and his traditional right-wing enemies, was the beginning of Christopher Hitchens' political rethinking.

Overall, I still support what was done, despite the difficulties and the fact that the USA ended up being there long, long after President Clinton promised they would be gone. My expectations for such things tend to be temppered with realism, and expecting everyone to sing "Kumbaya" together wasn't on my list. Nor was a quick war and quick pullout, which would have been disastrous of course. And having the whole thing run by the UN/NGO set doesn't inspire confidence in either the effectiveness or the urgency of their efforts.

In short, none of the stuff I linked to surprised me, or changed my mind.

Mostly, because these things don't change the upsides from Clinton's intervention. The good news that resulted in comparison to what life was like before - that matters. Avoidance of what may have become a regional war drawing in Albania, Greece, Turkey et. al. also matters. So did some unexpected stuff, like the US military's performance in Iraq being improved by the soldiers who had honed local action and nation-building skills in Bosnia with IFOR.

I did think the issue of [a] the jihadists and their Wahabbi funding was worth a profile raiser; [b] the weakness and outright collusion from foreign governments that kept monsters free was both illustrative and dispiriting; and [c ] having the French media demonstrate exactly what Paris native Gabriel Gonzalez had written about them here was very educational.

So, what's next in Bosnia?

While I supported and still support the war, I do believe, that Bosnia needs to be a European project going forward. The pressing moral issue that prompted intervention is now gone, IFOR's usefulness to the US military as a training ground has expired, attention is required elsewhere, and the Europeans have the ability and wealth to handle this and more if they choose.

Given that it's their continent and their immediate interests at stake, they ought to do so. Uncle Sam cannot and should not be everyone's security guarantor, and I'm a firm believer in giving the Euro ankle-biters some real responsibilities in their own neighbourhood. Maybe it'll help them grow up - though Darfur and Iran both illustrate, in different ways, why that's likely to be a long process if it happens at all.

Still, gotta start somewhere.

As for those jihadis, I would let the Bosnian government know that if the al-Qaeda types cause any trouble, the USA will be both displeased and inclined to act on their displeasure - so please deal with this before it comes to that.