Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Intelligence & Research Divisions, eh? You mean brainstorming sessions. And this surprises you.

Doesn't surprise me at all. It confirms my thesis that Washington is a major protagonist in the violent breakup of Yugoslavia - and not the "peace maker" it portrays itself as being.

You write that the US was against recognition even while Germany was training KLA guerillas.

No I don't. I say that the public posturing of the US was against recognition in 89-90-91 and I give a number of reasons for this (see my previous posts).

The US has one policy. The Germans had another.

Don't buy that. George H. W. Bush (Senior), president of the US from 1988-1992 proclaimed on numerous occasions during his tenure that Germany was America's strategic partner. You don't make that kind of statement if you've got a serious foreign policy disagreement with your "strategic partner". Conclusion: US and Germany were partners in which the roles were well defined and distributed (it's a classic in business negotiations).

If the world's sole surviving superpower in 1990 wanted peace, why didn't it offer a balanced peace plan to the parties - for example: the right to autodetermination for eacht ethnic group: Albanians in Kosovo, Serbs in Croatia, Serbs in Bosnia, Croats in Bosnia, ... etc?

And I don't buy "bludner" as the answer, given the armies of men & women that work on "brainstorming" scenarios, as you pointed out.

by vladimir on Sun Dec 16th, 2007 at 03:07:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series