Intervention Would Further Hinder Human Rights

The staff takes a reasonably principled stand on the issue of military intervention in the Balkans. Acknowledging that bombing raids are only a first step toward the eventual Involvement of U.S. ground forces, it concludes that the cause of human rights in the Balkans is worth the high cost in U.S. lives.

Where the staff errs is in assuming that enforcing respect of human rights in the Balkans is achievable by U.S. military force.

Sure, we could wipe the region from the map if we wanted to. But that is not our goal. Our goal is to stop the killing. Given that objective, bombing the country seems a counterintuitive choice.

We got into Vietnam for all the "right" reasons. We went there to protect the country and the region from an oppressive, murderous dictatorship. By the time the war ended, not only were many thousands of Americans dead, but we were just as oppressive and murderous as our opponents, and we had expanded the war throughout South east Asia.

Right now, we have the moral high ground. Will things be so clear when we bomb innocent civilians and kill our own allies through "friendly fire"? And what if we ignite a regional war? These are not idle concerns.

The facile response to my kind of critique is, "Show us a better solution." Such a response assumes that bombing our way toward human rights is a solution. It is not, especially in a powder keg like the Balkans.

The staff writes, "Moral issues can--and should--play a role in determining foreign policy." I agree. On those very grounds, however, U.S. involvement in a war in the Balkans should be rejected.