cj#259> Editorial: Bosnian Prospects


Richard Moore

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 00:00:11 -0700
Sender: •••@••.••• (John Lowry)
Subject: Planning History

If the Nato assault on the Bosnian Serbs is, as has been feared, the start
of WWIII, I fear that Richard's argument that history is carefully planned
will have been strengthened.  It's all too convenient!  Without a war, the
political landscape of the next year for Bill Clinton is a minefield where
his ambition for a second term can be destroyed at any turn.  With a war,
and a war that he was "dragged, kicking and screaming into," that scenario
is transformed into a game of touch football, where his stature as a
righteous commander-in-chief makes him virtually invincible.  At a time when
our national politics may actually be about something, that invincibility
would be quite an asset for the status quo.  How convenient!

John Lowry


Editorial:  Bosnian Prospects

There are both short and long range scenarios to look at.  From the point
of view of Clinton and the next election, one can understand his personal
motivation to participate vigorously in "solving" the Bosnian dilemma  --
no disagreement there.  Recall Carter's herculean efforts in facilitating
the Israel/Egypt accord.  Notice also, that such successes do not guarantee
re-election.  Between now and November 96 there's plenty of room for
several swings in Clinton's overall public image, and several fronts on
which he is vulnerable.

Such a difference between how the press treats Clinton and how it treated
ReganBush.  With Iran/Contra, the principal criminals (Reagan & Bush) were
left unmolested by the press, while a circus was created around boy-hero
North.  Now we have Clinton getting blamed for the Iran-Contra transfer
flights that used bases in Clinton's state -- let's get real, that was a
Federal operation.

In a longer range scenario, look at the similar pattern behind the Gulf
"War" and the events in Bosnia.  In both cases, the U.S. avoided or
undermined attempts to negotiate a settlement, and did every thing it could
to encourage polarization of positions and help create a situtation where
only overhelming force became a viable option.

And as the "day of force" drew closer, the demand was always for a free
hand outside any U.N. control, for the "forces of freedom" to defeat the
aggressor.  The actual charter for the Gulf forces was to expel Iraq from
Kuwait, but with the free hand, this charter was transformed into
demolishing Iraq's ability to exist as an industrialized nation.  Who made
this decision?  Who is accountable for it?

We are now seeing NATO forces being given a free hand in Bosnia, at first
with limited objectives.  If the crisis persists, there will be additional
opportunities for taking a "firm hand" to the Serbs.  Events could evolve
toward increasing activity by NATO, with always less attention given to
requesting authorization.  We could get to the point where a de-facto war
is being waged, with daily operations decided purely on tactical grounds.
What would be the charter of NATO in this situation?  Who would decide that

This becomes a likely scenario if the Balkans do not stabilize quickly.  I
do not think the impact of the U.S./NATO actions is headed toward
stabilization.  As I mentioned before, Gen. Sewell (architect of Panama and
Gulf War operations) has been advising Croatia on building up a
multilateral military force.  Simulataneously, Croatia is openly acting as
arms broker in violation of the supposed arms embargo.

Given this advice and implicit(?) encouragement, Croatia launched its
invasion of long-held Serbian territories.  The violence of this invasion
was intentionally downplayed by the press, and instead of dealing with the
plight of the displaced Serbs, the media was only interested in the
counter-expulsions in Bosnia.

I think the continuing demonization of the Serbs, and the one-sided
reporting of events by the media, is very ominous.  Given that public
mind-set, it is very likely the U.S. & NATO will seek to impose a
settlement that to some degree punishes the Serbs for their "heinous
aggressions", or that might leave them in an uncomfortable position as
regards the security of their assigned regions.

If the Serbs find the NATO settlement unacceptable, they could be expected
to resist, which could lead to a state of war between NATO and all the
Serb-held territories.  These territories would then be in the same
situation that Saravejo has been in: subject to unpredictable bombardment
at any time.  The West might see this as "justice", but Serbia and other
Slavic countries would be as outraged by this situation as the West has
been outraged by Sarajevo.

Would Serbia be tempted to intervene?  With what assistance?  This might
seem like an unlikely scenario, but what if the situation escalates to
where Serbia feels unnacceptable provocation is occurring?  Keep in mind
that this whole mess started with Germany's lightening recognition of
Croatian independence.  Given the alignment of NATO with Germany's
interests, and the presence of the Luftwaffe in the NATO forces striking
the Serbs, the Serbs see themselves as facing invasion by a
Croation/Bosnian army backed up by German air power.

This is all too reminiscent of fascist attacks on Serbs in WWII.  At a
recent Soccer match involving the Croation team the event began as follows:
"The Croation national anthem was acccompanied by a forest of Nazi salutes
and followed by a cacophony of fascist songs." (The Guardian, 9/5).

Are we seeing the unleashing of neo-expansionist operations of a
neo-fascist alliance?  Under the auspices of NATO?  Monitored and
authorized by whom?  With what restraints?  With what guidelines for
dealing with escalation?

So the "WWIII" scenario is not that unlikely, and could facilitate German
domination of Eastern Europe, its NWO sphere of influence.  But it would be
a WWIII existing under certain unspecified constraints, with the U.S.
subtly managing the level of escalation permitted.  It could involve
Turkey, Iran, Russia, and many others.  Or it could be more limited.

The real issues and forces operating in the Balkans are far different from
the safe-area sideshow covered in the press.  We could be on the verge of a
full-fledged war being carried out under the NWO regime, an operation of a
fundamentally larger scale than the Gulf.  If this happens, it will all be
very Orwellian.  The public media will continue to go from one event to the
next, always framed as the good guys vs. the bad guys.  The more
fundamental protagonists and consequences will go unreported.  If the news
coverage is similar to the Gulf Adventure, we won't even know what's going
on operationally.

In conclusion, Mr. Clinton's personal concerns are unlikely to be
determinative of these events.  Bigger forces are at work.  He'll play his
required role.  "How Convenient!" indeed.