The Balkans today---did Gen Clark accomplish anything?

[Capn Sunshine]

January 7, 2004: The hatreds and disputes in the Balkans have not diminished after ten years of NATO occupation. As a result, US forces are being reduced and European armies are trying different tactics to deal with the dangers of Balkan peacekeeping.


January 6, 2004: A local TV station reported that a Danish KFOR patrol was excessively rough in it's search of the Kosovo Serb village of Matica (near Zvecan), "demolishing houses and leaving chaos". The villagers are irate, particularly since the searches were carried out on the eve of major Orthodox holidays. Meanwhile, over 800 Minnesota National Guard soldiers are beginning their KFOR peacekeeping rotation. They will be in Kosovo by the end of February. - Adam Geibel

January 5, 2004: Former Dutch Foreign Minister De Hoop Scheffer, who took over NATO's secretary generalship from Britain's George Robertson, made it clear that under his watch NATO will closely watch the situation in the Balkans and stick to its present policy for the region. His message is probably as much a warning directed to Al Qaeda's friends in the Balkans as encouragement to the local governments. NATO plans to hand over its peacekeeping mission in Bosnia to a European Union command after nine years, while maintaining its operations in Kosovo. - Adam Geibel


December 31, 2003: Since NATO has decide to trim its multinational peacekeeping force from 12,000 soldiers to 7,000 by June 2004, the manpower requirements on Army National Guard units have decreased. The Indiana-based 38th Infantry Division will take control of the northern region of Bosnia in April, but with just 800 Guardsmen and Reservists instead of the 1,458 troops originally planned. - Adam Geibel


more...
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=BALKANS.HTM

[Jack_Dawson]

1. Saved 1.5 million lives...

That's all. Next.

[OrAnarch]

2. I do not think thats an objective view

In any conflict, there are unintended consequences and unmentiond motives. Everything should be questioned or we learn nothing. Theres no way anyone can objectionably say nothing bad was accomplished by this military intervention. Bad, as well as good, must also be considered.

[Jack_Dawson]

3. It's fact - and he's a war hero

Don't believe me? Try asking the Albanians who show up at every appearance.

[OrAnarch]

4. Any objective person will disagree...

with this statement about what was accomplished:

"Saved 1.5 million lives... That's all. Next."

Lives were saved, but were none destroyed? Were no bombs dropped? Were no innocents hurt? Was there no other geopolotical motivatios behind this war?

Was simply 1.5 million lives saved end of story? Like magic


Thats not an objective viewpoint. Sorry.

[wyldwolf]

5. So I guess WWII was a failure?

After all,

Lives were saved, but were none destroyed? Were no bombs dropped? Were no innocents hurt? Was there no other geopolotical motivatios behind this war?

[OrAnarch]

8. Not at all...

But not for 1 minute will anyone on this board say in regards to WWII: "X amount of lives were saved. Thats all. End of story. Magically it happened."


There is much more too it than that. There was a war afterall, and in any war, there are no winners, just losers to varrying degrees.

[Bread and Circus]

6. Sorry that Clark is not Santa Claus giving gumdrops and sugar plums

to all the poor children of the world...

He was given a damn tough situation and made the best
of it. Give me one of these other candidates who could have
done better and tell me how they could have done it.

Next.

[OrAnarch]

10. That is hardley my point...

He didn't go about it perfectly, as Ive read regarding steps leading up to the conflict, but hindsight is 20/20, and luck is as important as anything. I am not faulting him personally. He was following orders primarily, and should bare as much responsibility for the innocent deaths or turmoil as he should recieve credit for the success. Probably no one else would of done better in this situation. After all, soldiers are good at soldiering and politicians are good at politiking; they should stick to what they are good at. (ok...I dont wanna go there...lets keep this on Balkan deal :) )


My point is simply that it is unobjective to, since you support his candidacy, to pretend that he magically save 1.5 million lives, end of story. You don't seem to think that way. That is good. I am not on the extreme saying that what he did was terrible in this conflict. I hope I can unbiasly intrepret both sides as I learn about this conflict more.

[OrAnarch]

7. BTW...

I am pretty unbiased on this issue, as I do not honestly know enough to determine if this act was a moral and just war.


But even with that said, it is simply unobjective to judge a Means by its Ends, and to only judge the Ends that you want to consider while ignoring the rest. More things happened that 1.5 lives being magically saved, if that is even the case in the first place.

[styersc]

9. Not only did he save 1.5 million from slaughter...

...but he pioneered the strategy for defense and warfare in the post-Cold War world. You can argue for one reason or another that you don't want Clark to be the President, but you cannot argue that he is not a brilliant and accomplished man.