It is well that Richard Holbrooke has resurfaced, because his status as one of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy advisors confirms the belief that she represents the ideas and priorities of the foreign policy establishment, of which he is a proud member.
Mr. Holbrooke argues that Mrs. Clinton would not make the mistakes of her allegedly less experienced husband when he took office, citing as an example the latter's supposed failure to "act earlier" in the case of Bosnia. But what exactly would Mr. Holbrooke suggest that Bill Clinton have done "earlier" on Bosnia? Should the U.S. have intervened militarily, in the midst of Slobodan Milosevic's bloody adventurism there? Unlike the 1999 bombing campaign, which punished Serbia for ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, such intervention would have required American ground forces, possibly just as large as were used in Iraq. Would Americans have accepted the same costs in Bosnia that they ultimately rejected in Iraq, given that U.S. security was no more at stake in the Balkans than in Iraq? Or does Mr. Holbrooke mean that Mr. Clinton should have been more vigorous in his diplomacy? That war began in 1992, before Bill Clinton took office, and European diplomacy, NATO air strikes, and other efforts to suppress it began before Mr. Holbrooke joined the State Department in 1994. Just what does Mr. Holbrooke believe President Clinton could have done but did not do, and which he implies that his wife would do?
We particularly need to know if that action could entail the use of American forces in a theatre of war in which the U.S. has no security interests -- because that was the reality in the Balkans, and that is a presidential action which Americans today would likely not approve in 2009. And that is precisely the worry about Hillary Clinton, who not only voted for the Iraq war, but voted to brand a part of the Iranian military as a terrorist organization -- thereby handing to President Bush the arguable justification to use American military forces against Iran, in the name of fighting terrorism.
posted 12/18/2007 at 15:37:13
Mr. Holbrooke argues that Mrs. Clinton would not make the mistakes of her allegedly less experienced husband when he took office, citing as an example the latter's supposed failure to "act earlier" in the case of Bosnia. But what exactly would Mr. Holbrooke suggest that Bill Clinton have done "earlier" on Bosnia? Should the U.S. have intervened militarily, in the midst of Slobodan Milosevic's bloody adventurism there? Unlike the 1999 bombing campaign, which punished Serbia for ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, such intervention would have required American ground forces, possibly just as large as were used in Iraq. Would Americans have accepted the same costs in Bosnia that they ultimately rejected in Iraq, given that U.S. security was no more at stake in the Balkans than in Iraq? Or does Mr. Holbrooke mean that Mr. Clinton should have been more vigorous in his diplomacy? That war began in 1992, before Bill Clinton took office, and European diplomacy, NATO air strikes, and other efforts to suppress it began before Mr. Holbrooke joined the State Department in 1994. Just what does Mr. Holbrooke believe President Clinton could have done but did not do, and which he implies that his wife would do?
We particularly need to know if that action could entail the use of American forces in a theatre of war in which the U.S. has no security interests -- because that was the reality in the Balkans, and that is a presidential action which Americans today would likely not approve in 2009. And that is precisely the worry about Hillary Clinton, who not only voted for the Iraq war, but voted to brand a part of the Iranian military as a terrorist organization -- thereby handing to President Bush the arguable justification to use American military forces against Iran, in the name of fighting terrorism.
posted 12/18/2007 at 15:37:13
No comments:
Post a Comment