Steve,

I am really baffled by what you said in point #1 that "the major immediate technical military problem in Yugoslavia has been solved." Solving the military problem in this conflict or other conflicts is not an end by itself; it is a means to achieve a goal.

You seem to indicate that the goal is "the protection of the Montenegrin and Hungarian minorities." I don't know from where did you get that. The Montenegrins are Serbs who live in the Republic of Montenegro that is part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. During the war, oops I mean the conflict (remember Clinton refused to call it a war), the Montenegrins were demonstrating against NATO even though their leadership, like the leadership of Macedonia, were distancing themselves from Milosevic hoping to get some financial aid from the West. As for the Hungarians, they live in the north. The war, oops again, the conflict was about the Albanian population of Kosovo, a southern province of the Repulic of Serbia. Montenegrins and Hungarians have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Your point #2 is more baffling. Why do you keep bringing the UN in the discussion? The UN didn't establish a new doctrine of going to war for humanitarian reasons; Clinton did. And on that basis I asked what would Clinton do to help the Tamil. You seem to exclude NATO from taking a stand on the Tamil issue because it is "a purely regional defensive alliance." If this is the case, why did NATO attack Yugoslavia? After all, Yugoslavia did not attack, not even threaten, any NATO member. You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand you say NATO is a "defensive alliance" and on the other you justify NATO offensive move against Yugoslavia.

Medhat
June 29, 1999