Response to Paul Phillips #4, (4 items, about 3 pages):
1) I shall not claim that there has been no misreporting of the
situation. However, you still have not shown (maybe you will
tomorrow) that atrocities of various sorts by other groups
exceed or even come remotely close to those committed by the
Serbs.
2) Another unfortunate side effect of current US/UN/NATO policy
is that it probably will encourage the Bosnian Muslims to keep
fighting thereby prolonging the agony. A settlement along current
battlelines is probably awful. But at the current time, what is
both better and achievable? The lines after the Serbs "cleanse"
Gorazde? There probably will be more war, no matter what.
3) Perhaps this is all revealed in _Covert Action_ or wherever,
but I fail to see what interest "US capital" had or has in the
dismemberment of Yugoslavia. Although technically (ah, a dicey
term to be sure) neutral, Yugoslavia was long a de facto anti-
Soviet nation in Europe and thus "on the US side" in the
Cold War. Indeed the US armed Tito. Maybe some bright idiot
thought US capital would have even more access than it was getting
in the late 1980's by breaking the country up, but if so, this was
certainly not rational. Certainly all public discussion in
Washington up until very recently emphasized the dangers and
instabilities potentially arising globally from such a breakup,
and the current mess is a sign that such a forecast was indeed
accurate. Indeed, as you have noted, the US has gone out of its
way until recently to avoid military involvement on its own.
4) One of the reasons, widely reported at the time, that Warren
Zimmerman was skeptical of Serb promises at Lisbon, was that
Milosevic had already broken several agreements in Croatia. He
had already shown his true colors, a lying murderer. But then,
I suppose this is all just misrepresentation by the press and he
is really Mohandas Gandhi in disguise, if only we would let him
have his way.
In sadness, too.
Barkley Rosser
James Madison University
