Why didn't we go into Yugoslavia with the same tenacity we went into Iraq?

Question

It's just my opinion but it seems that Milosevic threatening to destabilize a very calm region vs Hussein keeping the lid on an incredibly volitile one is pretty cut and dry and basic common sense in the matter of who you should fight.

What do you think?
Don't tell me about how many hussein killed...because Miloshit did more than his fair share too.

Answer 1

Because there was no oil in Yugoslavia.

Answer 2

It was another mess where both sides had been killing each other, only Tito as dictator of Yugoslavia had things carcked down so tight that no genocide was going on. Once the USSR wa sgone, the foreign muslims backed the Bosnians who tried purging Serbia of non-muslims, and then began losing so badly the UN and President Clinton had to jump in. I'm not excusing the killing on either side, it was a civil war worse than Iraq, and we still have troops there, but it's not a case of who is "good" and who is "bad", and those high altitude dropped bombs (because Clinton didn't believe in close tactical air support, which always costs military personnel lives when you don't have it) killed a lot of civilians too.

Answer 3

Because Clinton was scared his poll numbers would drop if any US soldiers died. That could have harmed his "legacy" hunt. So he bombed Serbian civilian targets from high altitude, ensuring unnecessary civilian deaths and high levels of unnecessary collateral damage.

Shall we talk about the tens of thousands of Kosovars in mass graves, a reason Clinton gave for our unprovoked attack, that never existed?

Shall we talk about the fact that the UN did not sanction this unprovoked attack?

Or shall we talk how "genius" Wesley Clarke nearly started WW3 with the Russians while over there?

As for your assessment of the splintering Yugoslavia as "very calm" or that Saddam wasn't destabilizing is quite a long ways from the truth. But, in this case, the truth didn't serve your needs.

Answer 4

We did go in w/ the same tenacity. We mounted a very massive air campaign, then deployed massive numbers of troops. By contrast, the UN stood by and watched people be massacred.

By the time we got into Yugoslavia, many of the factions were already looking for peace. Much of what you see now in Iraq had already run its course when we got involved. It was easier to keep the survivors of the human tragedy under control than it would've been to prevent such a tragedy.

Answer 5

I think going into either region is a waste of time. There have been brutal ethic and religious based wars in both areas for a lot longer than America has been a country.

For the West to think that the US or the UN (or any external group) can stop what these areas have done for so long is arrogant and futile.

Answer 6

Different presidents different policies. We quelled the violence in Yugoslavia without the commitment of ground troops and with a consensus among our allies. We stormed into Iraq without consensus or a plan that would cover the eventuality of a civil war left in the wake of a dictator's destruction.

Answer 7

No oil in Yugo.

It was a true multi-national PEACE keeping mission, not an all out war.

Europe is fairly stable compared to the middle east. Yugo would not have destabilized the region-- only themselves. They were too busy killing off each other.

Plus, let's not forget-- the US went in to PROTECT MUSLIMS during that time- funny how the muslim world totally forgets that one.

Answer 8

I somewhat agree with J.R. But just for the record we did bomb the crud out of them. Also, the UN played a more significant role.

Answer 9

I think it was because Saddam was a far greater threat to the world than that idiot Milosevic.

Answer 10

What natural resources are there in Yugoslavia?



Exactly.