Information Related to "After Kosovo - What Then?"
| Audio/Video |
 |
After Kosovo—What Then?Now that the alliance, while celebrating its 50th anniversary, has used its troops to help resolve another nation's internal problems, which country will be next?by Melvin RhodesIn hindsight, wars are often turning points in world history. They alter the balance of power, boundaries are redrawn, leaders are replaced and peoples are uprooted. As it has been throughout history so it will be with Kosovo. Perceptions take time to change, but there will be significant changes over Kosovo. Clear signals have been sent by allies America and Britain that ground troops will likely not be used in future conflicts, except in short minor wars. This could have grave consequences and not only in the immediate situation. Imagine if, in World War II, Churchill and Roosevelt had stated at the onset of hostilities that they would not use ground troops in their attempt to defeat the Axis powers. The reluctance to use ground forces was compounded by announcements on both sides of the Atlantic that they would not be used-sending a message to Serbia's leadership that there was a limit to what the NATO alliance would do to try to defeat them. Lessons from the last conflict in the Balkans seem to have been lost-it wasn't western air power that defeated the Bosnian Serbs against the Moslems earlier this decade, but Croatian ground forces helped by allied air power. Television has made ground wars less likely as public opinion could not stomach the nightly coverage of carnage and of body bags arriving back on home soil. Opinion among voters is always fickle with people quickly changing their minds on the issues of the day. This has long been the case, predating television. In 1876 public opinion in Britain was antagonistic toward the Turks after atrocities they committed against the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina, (the scene of more atrocities earlier this decade at the hands of Serbia's present leadership). Less than two years later the same public was supporting the Turks against the Russians who had come to the aid of their Slav brothers in the Balkans. A former British Foreign Secretary wondered at the time how any democratic government could possibly have a foreign policy "if within 18 months the great majority of them are found asking for things which are directly contradictory." Public opinion is now sympathetic to the Kosovar Albanians who have been ruthlessly evicted from their country. Seen nightly on television the scenes are reminiscent of the Holocaust almost 60 years ago and naturally have stirred the emotions of people throughout the world. But what happens after the refugees have been resettled and there is no more TV coverage of their plight? The bombing of Serbia will doubtless continue for some time with greater coverage of the plight of "innocent" victims killed, maimed, or left homeless by NATO's state of the art technology. Public opinion could soon turn against the allied effort to defeat Serbia with people claiming that the people should not suffer for the sins of their leaders. Little Support for Ground War It was difficult enough fighting wars overseas 50 or 100 years ago, but today's news coverage makes it much more difficult for western governments. Added to this is the lower birth rate in North America and western Europe. A century ago most families had six, seven or eight children, half of them statistically boys. If one boy was lost fighting for his country, they still had two or three to continue the family farm and support the parents in their old age. Today, most couples have two children and many only one. Parents will naturally be reluctant to risk the life of their one son fighting in a conflict thousands of miles away that they find difficult to understand. In effect, Britain and the United States want to win wars without any loss of life, unrealistic if you want to win. Not since World War II have the major western allies (the U.S. and Britain) won a major ground war. Britain won its war against Argentina over the Falkland Islands, part of which was fought on the ground, but the war was over quickly before opinion back home turned against government policy. In the Persian Gulf conflict ground forces were only used after a long bombing campaign. Iraqi troops fled before the allied forces so casualties were minimal and the fighting was over in a few days. Even then, eight years ago, it was decided not to go deeper into Iraq to find and arrest the Iraqi leadership-partly out of concern of losing too many young men. As a result of this hesitancy over the deployment of ground forces Iraq still poses the same threat as it did before the Gulf War. Great numbers of servicemen and much military hardware are still in the Gulf in case of more trouble from Iraq. If the problem had been resolved completely in 1991 those forces would now be free for use elsewhere. When British public opinion was seen to be in favor of the use of ground troops, the BBC pointed out that Britain already had 62 percent of its forces committed outside the country itself. If another 20 percent or so were sent to the Balkans there would be few left behind to handle any emergency at home. Gone are the days when "five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight" (Leviticus 26:8), a consequence of obedience to Almighty God. Rather we now see the lack of the "mighty man and the man of war....the captain of fifty and the honorable man" (Isaiah 3:2-3). Leviticus chapter 26 shows clearly the connection between obedience to God and the resultant blessings, and disobedience and the coming curses. One of the blessings for obedience that God gives is many children (verse 9). While the peoples of the western democracies have limited the size of their families, the populations of many countries have been increasing at a very high rate. This has put western nations at a considerable disadvantage, leaving advanced technology as the only way to win wars, if they can be won this way. Defense Spending and Recruitment Down Military recruitment is down in the U.S.and Britain, the result of a falling birthrate and lower unemployment. In the U.S. the military is considering lowering standards to allow high school dropouts to join the forces. In Britain they are trying to entice young people at the age of 16 (though they cannot be used until aged 18), in the hope of getting them away from home before they are tied down by other jobs or romantic relationships. It has been frequently pointed out that the U.S. today, just eight years after the conflict in the Persian Gulf, could not put together the same force it used at the beginning of this decade. Partly, this is the result of cuts in the military budget due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the euphoric feeling in the Clinton administration that this meant there was less of a threat to U.S. interests around the world. At the time former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger warned that the collapse of communism had left the world more dangerous than before, a fact illustrated by events throughout this decade. Before this decade America's defense policy was based on the need to be able to fight two long term conflicts in different parts of the world at the same time and win both, the result of having to do just that in World War II. Military authorities claim this remains U.S. policy, while some observers believe that the policy was actually abandoned a few years ago. Now the U.S. finds itself fighting two prolonged conflicts in different parts of the world with no end in view. Both Serbia and Iraq can hold out indefinitely, their leaders becoming more popular and politically secure as allied bombing continues. The United States, like Great Britain before it, is increasingly prone to what is called "imperial overreach," where international military commitments cannot be sustained without negative repercussions back home, economic or political and with military forces over committed and over stretched. In a period of just six months the U.S. bombed four different countries, with lightning strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan following the bombings of the American embassies in east Africa, in addition to regular sustained bombing of Iraq and Serbia. Ground troops are still committed in different parts of the world, usually in case of renewed conflict following wars fought years ago that were not completely resolved. Korea is the best example of this. The war there ended 46 years ago but the U.S. still keeps thousands of troops in the country in case the North attacks again. Bosnia is a more recent example, setting a possible precedent for nearby Kosovo. The enemy in both cases is the Serbs. U.S. troops were sent to Bosnia as a peacekeeping force for twelve months. They are still there and must continue to remain there unless war is to resume. It is probable that the Kosovo conflict will result in the stationing of allied troops in Kosovo as a peace-keeping force, also for an indefinite period of time. 50 Years of Stalemates The fact is that over the last 50 years America's military adventures overseas have usually ended in a stalemate, with neither side gaining a clear victory. Such scenarios are set to increase in number as a result of events in Kosovo. Now every ethnic group in the world will have hopes raised for independence, knowing that the U.S. and Britain will have to come to their aid if they are not to be accused of racism and inconsistency. The rebels themselves can provide the ground forces if the allies will just bomb their oppressive overlords. Rebel demands for "democracy" always help to gain sympathy in the West, but democracy is unlikely to follow after independence. But, by that time, the cameras have gone and the electorate in the West is none the wiser. Added to the above are the ripple effects of the war on relations between the U.S. and Russia, where anger at the bombing of fellow Slavs in Serbia has led to increased anti-Americanism. This increases the likelihood of the end of democracy and a reversal to a state-controlled economy. The future of NATO is another question: will the European allies be disillusioned with American leadership after realizing that the U.S. will not use ground forces in a foreign conflict? Now that the alliance, while celebrating its 50th anniversary, has used its troops to help resolve another nation's internal problems, which country will be next? What impact will the war have on Germany now that German troops have been deployed outside Germany for the first time since World War II? Will terrorism in western nations increase as Serbs, Iraqis and others hit back? With the Pentagon already warning that the U.S. is running out of missiles, and since it takes two years to produce more, will this conflict drain America's military resources to a dangerous low? Long term, the biggest question of all has not even been raised. If the U.S. and Britain can intervene in the internal affairs of other nations, could they intervene militarily in theirs? Their own nations are not immune to ethnic conflict. They may have set a precedent without parallel in their history. WNP "According to one estimate, the Gulf War temporarily or permanently displaced 5.5 million people. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) last year reckoned there were 12 million refugees around the world, as well as 1 million asylum seekers, 3.5 [million] recently returned refugees and millions more displaced within their own countries. At least 3.2[million] Palestinians are still classified as refugees. In Iran alone, some 2 [million] refugees-from Afghanistan and Iraq-live in border camps. Well over 1 [million] Afghans have sheltered in Pakistan since 1979" (The Economist, April 4, 1999). |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| © 1995-2022 United
Church of God, an International Association | Request
Free Literature Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. All correspondence and questions should be sent to info@wnponline.org. Send inquiries regarding the operation of this Web site to webmaster@churchofgodtwincities.org. |
|
Related Information:
Other Articles by Melvin Rhodes
Origin of article "After Kosovo - What Then?"
Keywords: Kosovo U.S. military refugees
Kosovo:
