Bill Clinton says that NATO had a right to go to war against a
sovereign nation because “ending this tragedy is a moral imperative.” He
says that “our children need and deserve a peaceful, stable, free
Europe.” However, if ending bloodshed was at the heart of his foreign
policy, why did he not try to stop the violence in Sierra Leone, the
Congo or Rwanda? In all three cases, they slaughtered more people than
Aren’t the lives of Africans as important as the lives of Europeans,
Exactly whose children do you care about? Since when is it America’s job
to enter every single civil war that breaks out around the world?
Bill asked Americans to get out their maps and find Kosovo. He said
that since Kosovo sits in the “middle” of Europe, it was in our national
interests to stop the violence from escalating. He said that if we
didn’t stop the bloodshed in Kosovo, it would continue and might infect
the rest of Europe.
Bill Clinton clearly doesn’t understand the history of Serbia and
Kosovo. Kosovo is the cradle of Serbian culture and religion. The Serbs
believe that if they lose Kosovo, they lose their souls. Six hundred
years ago, the Serbs lost a major battle in Kosovo. They have been
fighting to regain Kosovo ever since. That’s right, America has just
entered a war that has been going on for 600 years. What are the chances
that the Serbs will give up their fight because of NATO air strikes?
The prime minister of Italy asked Clinton what would he do if the
Serbs refused to stop fighting in response to NATO air strikes. Press
reports say that Clinton didn’t have an answer for this most basic
question. The first rule of war is that you must be prepared to use
whatever means necessary to achieve your goals. The second rule of war
is that unless you use nuclear weapons, air power alone will never
defeat a dictator.
Nuclear bombs are off the table in Yugoslavia. So if the “Butcher of
the Balkans” refuses to give up, will Clinton send U.S. soldiers and
marines to fight and die in the Balkans? Is that in America’s national
interest? If Americans die in Kosovo, would their deaths change over 600
years of history?
We know what happened in Vietnam. Tens of thousands of American lives
and tens of billions of American dollars couldn’t force the Vietnamese
people to do what we wanted. We know what happened in Iraq. Tens of
thousands of Iraqi lives and tens of billions of American dollars
haven’t forced Saddam to do what we want. In Somalia, 18 Rangers died
because Clinton wouldn’t authorize our military to use the appropriate
force to protect our people. Now there is no government in Somalia. Are
the people in Somalia better off because of our involvement?
Five hundred of our troops are still in Haiti although the president
of Haiti has abolished the parliament and rules as a dictator. Our
generals want us to pull out of Haiti because we no longer can protect
our people. Clinton says no for political reasons. We have spent
billions of tax dollars in Haiti. Are the people in Haiti better off
because of our involvement?
Oh yes, and remember Bill’s promise about our troops in Bosnia? They
were supposed to be home by which Christmas? Clearly, the minute they
leave Bosnia, all hell will break out again. Is it in America’s national
interest to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to have troops in
What is it about this Yugoslav civil war that is crucial to America’s
national security interest anyway? As crazy as it may seem, Wednesday’s
London Times says that the U.S. may have entered a war to protect
Marxist drug dealers.
The Kosovo Liberation Army, which has won the support of the West for
its guerrilla struggle against the heavy armor of the Serbs, is a
Marxist-led force funded by dubious sources, including drug money.
That is the judgment of senior police officers across Europe. An
investigation by The Times has established that police forces in three
Western European countries, together with Europol, the European police
authority, are separately investigating growing evidence that drug money
is funding the KLA’s leap from obscurity to power.
The financing of the Kosovo guerrilla war poses critical questions
and it sorely tests claims to an “ethical” foreign policy. Should the
West back a guerrilla army that appears to be partly financed by
organized crime? Could the KLA’s need for funds be fueling the heroin
trade across Europe?
Is Clinton putting American troops at risk to help Marxist drug
dealers win a civil war? Should Americans die to save the KLA? Who is
our enemy anyway? Do we really want to kill Serb civilians because they
can’t get rid of their butcher dictator? Didn’t we learn anything in
Americans have seen enough, done enough, spent enough, died enough to
know that we should stay out of Kosovo. We should only use our military
when crucial national security interests of America are at stake. That
is not so in Kosovo. We should only use our military when the American
people are prepared to see their sons and daughters come back in body
bags. That is not so in Kosovo. We should only use our military when the
American people are prepared to use whatever means necessary to destroy
the will of our enemy to fight. The Serbs are not the enemy of the
A friend of mine is a West Point grad who fears that Bill has
developed a “Monica-like” addiction to using military force. I hope this
Army vet is wrong. However, we won’t stop the needless loss of American
lives by just wishing that Clinton knew what he was doing. Call your
senators today. Tell them to get us out of Kosovo. We don’t need another