What Clinton didn't tell us

What Clinton didn't tell us by Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <11/28>
He made a short TV address asking for the country to support sending 20,000 troops to Bosnia. He was good enough to tell us that peace in that backwater country was in some manner in our interests and traditions. He was long on ideals but completely lacking in specifics. I will attempt to fill in some of those specifics. For example he assured us that both sides were dedicated to peace yet failed to explain why, if that is in fact true, that there is a need for any troops in the first place. The answer is obvious. It is our job to kill anyone who breaks the peace. While summary execution is not a common penalty in the US it is one our troops are going to have to come to know and love. This is not speculation on my part as if the sides really wanted peace, troops would not be needed. But then stopping people from killing each other by summarily executing those who do is, in the mind of President Clinton, in the great tradition of the United States. We were told the security of Europe is in our interests and that is why we fought two wars there and rebuilt it after WW II. I would have thought a Rhodes' scholar would know that these countries are in what was once Yugoslavia. He might also know that Yugoslavia was a communist country even before WW II. He should then know we did not spend on penny rebuilding any communist country. We really didn't care. What he did not say is that it is now an American tradition to save eastern Europe from the destruction they brought upon themselves. We were told "we" made an agreement to send troops and have an obligation to fulfil it. He did not say who this "we" is but the answer is himself and his political appointees made that agreement. It is not clear the absolute power to obligate the country resides in the president. What he did not say is that he is going to send troops to Bosnia regardless of what the Congress or the country thinks about it. The least he could do is invent a Gulf of Tonkin incident. It would should he is making an effort beyond his smile to carry the day. We were told that US Leadership would be called into question if we do not implement our brokered peace agreement. It is difficult to see how that is possible. Certainly Clinton's leadership will be questioned. In that regard one must remember the result of Clinton's first NATO meeting. The comments from heads of France and Germany were to the effect of, who can we look to for leadership now that he is president? If the US provides no troops it will be no surprise to the rest of NATO. In fact, it will be a surprise to NATO if he does deliver what he promised. What he was really saying is that sending troops is his personal opportunity to regain a position of leadership in NATO. (If NATO only knew him like we know him...) He told us that the Mission would be specific and focussed but he failed to provide the specifics or the focus. Is it some kind of secret? After all, the first troops will be on the way some time this week, long before Congress says yeah or nay. What he did not tell us is that the mission is NOT specific or focussed. What he did not tell us is that the specifics will be created in response to the debate in Congress and that, solely for the purposes of securing support in Congress, certain specifics will be enunciated. But we know Bill Clinton, most recently from the budget agreement. Neither he nor his people ever feel they are bound by anything they either say or agree to. And I doubt Congress has the cajones to make what he and his people say as absolute conditions upon any approval given. He told us we have a moral obligation to help them but then he failed to name the moral principle. I am familiar with the major religions of the world and I am unaware of any moral principle whatsoever that applies to this situation. I know of no religion having as a moral principle to step into the middle of a fight between two people and stop it. But let me go one step further. There is no moral principle based upon any religion that governs the behavior of nations to nations, period. The closest to it is Confucianism but that is not a religion. In this matter he not only failed to provide the relevant moral principle, he lied in implying there is one. What we might desire to do as individuals does not apply to the nation as a whole. Much less does it enable individuals to send in someone else, our troops, to do the dirty work for us. And he told us we have strategic and national interests there but he did not say what they were. The closest he got was a peaceful Europe. Excuse me but Russia and Chechnya are in Europe and they were warring. I did not hear of any strategic interest of the US in stopping that war. Clinton appeared to implying that if this civil war continues that the winner will immediately conquer Germany or Russia or some place even Senate candidates can find on a map -- we hope. Even his most ardent supporters warn that Macedonia may become involved. Real quick now, Senate candidate or not, where is that on the map? And this of course misses the most obvious answer. Were there even the most remote chance of that happening, the capitol of the country that tried it would be radioactive rubble. One would think a Rhodes' scholar would know exactly what was understood by our military as soon as the bomb was developed, nuclear powers can never engage in a massive land war again. And he said he would take the responsibility but as we know when Clinton says he takes responsibility it means, don't blame me. No one takes seriously the man who took responsibility for the deaths at Waco and then refused to exercise that responsibility in any manner. Clinton taking responsibility is like the Pope taking responsibility for the consequences of being against birth control. Of course we are being assured that if our troops are in any manner threatened we will respond with massive force. And that is supposed to assure us. Pardon me for reminding our best known Rhodes' scholar, but the Nazis had 26 armored divisions in the same country all during the war, with search and destroy orders, and didn't accomplish much of anything. In that light I fail to see how "massive response" is in any manner comforting. What we were treated to what another set of "principles of the day" from Clinton. We know that no matter what he says or "agrees" to it is no indication in any manner of what will happen. And that is the most important point. No matter what he is saying today, it has no bearing upon what he will do tomorrow.

What Clinton didn't tell us
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <11/28>

     He made a short TV address asking for the country to support sending 20,000 troops to Bosnia. He was good enough to tell us that peace in that backwater country was in some manner in our interests and traditions. He was long on ideals but completely lacking in specifics. I will attempt to fill in some of those specifics.
     For example he assured us that both sides were dedicated to peace yet failed to explain why, if that is in fact true, that there is a need for any troops in the first place. The answer is obvious. It is our job to kill anyone who breaks the peace.
     While summary execution is not a common penalty in the US it is one our troops are going to have to come to know and love. This is not speculation on my part as if the sides really wanted peace, troops would not be needed.
     But then stopping people from killing each other by summarily executing those who do is, in the mind of President Clinton, in the great tradition of the United States.
     We were told the security of Europe is in our interests and that is why we fought two wars there and rebuilt it after WW II. I would have thought a Rhodes' scholar would know that these countries are in what was once Yugoslavia. He might also know that Yugoslavia was a communist country even before WW II. He should then know we did not spend on penny rebuilding any communist country. We really didn't care.
     What he did not say is that it is now an American tradition to save eastern Europe from the destruction they brought upon themselves.

We were told "we" made an agreement to send troops and have an obligation to fulfil it. He did not say who this "we" is but the answer is himself and his political appointees made that agreement. It is not clear the absolute power to obligate the country resides in the president.
What he did not say is that he is going to send troops to Bosnia regardless of what the Congress or the country thinks about it. The least he could do is invent a Gulf of Tonkin incident. It would should he is making an effort beyond his smile to carry the day.

We were told that US Leadership would be called into question if we do not implement our brokered peace agreement. It is difficult to see how that is possible. Certainly Clinton's leadership will be questioned. In that regard one must remember the result of Clinton's first NATO meeting. The comments from heads of France and Germany were to the effect of, who can we look to for leadership now that he is president?
If the US provides no troops it will be no surprise to the rest of NATO. In fact, it will be a surprise to NATO if he does deliver what he promised. What he was really saying is that sending troops is his personal opportunity to regain a position of leadership in NATO. (If NATO only knew him like we know him...)

     He told us that the Mission would be specific and focussed but he failed to provide the specifics or the focus. Is it some kind of secret? After all, the first troops will be on the way some time this week, long before Congress says yeah or nay.
     What he did not tell us is that the mission is NOT specific or focussed. What he did not tell us is that the specifics will be created in response to the debate in Congress and that, solely for the purposes of securing support in Congress, certain specifics will be enunciated.
     But we know Bill Clinton, most recently from the budget agreement. Neither he nor his people ever feel they are bound by anything they either say or agree to. And I doubt Congress has the cajones to make what he and his people say as absolute conditions upon any approval given.

     He told us we have a moral obligation to help them but then he failed to name the moral principle. I am familiar with the major religions of the world and I am unaware of any moral principle whatsoever that applies to this situation. I know of no religion having as a moral principle to step into the middle of a fight between two people and stop it.
     But let me go one step further. There is no moral principle based upon any religion that governs the behavior of nations to nations, period. The closest to it is Confucianism but that is not a religion.
     In this matter he not only failed to provide the relevant moral principle, he lied in implying there is one. What we might desire to do as individuals does not apply to the nation as a whole. Much less does it enable individuals to send in someone else, our troops, to do the dirty work for us.

     And he told us we have strategic and national interests there but he did not say what they were. The closest he got was a peaceful Europe. Excuse me but Russia and Chechnya are in Europe and they were warring. I did not hear of any strategic interest of the US in stopping that war.
     Clinton appeared to implying that if this civil war continues that the winner will immediately conquer Germany or Russia or some place even Senate candidates can find on a map -- we hope. Even his most ardent supporters warn that Macedonia may become involved. Real quick now, Senate candidate or not, where is that on the map?
     And this of course misses the most obvious answer. Were there even the most remote chance of that happening, the capitol of the country that tried it would be radioactive rubble. One would think a Rhodes' scholar would know exactly what was understood by our military as soon as the bomb was developed, nuclear powers can never engage in a massive land war again.

And he said he would take the responsibility but as we know when Clinton says he takes responsibility it means, don't blame me. No one takes seriously the man who took responsibility for the deaths at Waco and then refused to exercise that responsibility in any manner. Clinton taking responsibility is like the Pope taking responsibility for the consequences of being against birth control.

Of course we are being assured that if our troops are in any manner threatened we will respond with massive force. And that is supposed to assure us. Pardon me for reminding our best known Rhodes' scholar, but the Nazis had 26 armored divisions in the same country all during the war, with search and destroy orders, and didn't accomplish much of anything.
In that light I fail to see how "massive response" is in any manner comforting.

What we were treated to what another set of "principles of the day" from Clinton. We know that no matter what he says or "agrees" to it is no indication in any manner of what will happen. And that is the most important point. No matter what he is saying today, it has no bearing upon what he will do tomorrow.