Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Unjust or questionable action
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Monday, 13th March 2006
Hi all,
Just been reading posts re: the Balkans and this has led me to wonder - humanitarian action aside in the Balkans was this one of the least deserving areas where we've involved our troops in recent times. I'm not saying the innocent people that were massacred deserved it by any means and I am in no way say that it wasn't anything but Serbia's and Milosvic's (and his cronies) fault but did the actions of the other nations (and our own where we need to take blame) cause as much trouble as the initial Milosovic push for a "Greater Serbia".
I mean fighting back is one thing but allowing the situation to get so out of hand that it spread from Croatia through Bosnia and into Kosovo was "the west's" fault as much as anyone's I guess but do you think that everyone made the situ. worse knowing that NATO countries, the EU and the rest of the world would foot the reconstruction build so used the war as excuse to do as much damage as possible to each other - without any consequence other than the loss of innocent life.
On a more general note where (if anywhere) do you think we've sent our troops/forces that didn't deserve our help.
DL, I'd appreciate your comments here even if you do want to tear my post apart.... -
Message 2
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Good afternoon Falcon,
Well, as you probably gathered I've a bit to add to this one...
First bit,
"Just been reading posts re: the Balkans and this has led me to wonder - humanitarian action aside in the Balkans was this one of the least deserving areas where we've involved our troops in recent times. I'm not saying the innocent people that were massacred deserved it by any means and I am in no way say that it wasn't anything but Serbia's and Milosvic's (and his cronies) fault but did the actions of the other nations (and our own where we need to take blame) cause as much trouble as the initial Milosovic push for a "Greater Serbia"."
Not sure whether I'm mis-reading this, but it appears that you seem to think that Croatia, Bosnia and later on Kosovo, in some way were responsible for the initial aggression by Serbs that led to the nasty little four year war that raged through the Balkans?!?! If so, you are talking rubbish mate! Croatia is in some way responsible, since Franjo Tudjman, Croatia's President was just as guilty as Milosevic for whipping up nationalist fervour, and allowing old ethnic hate to surface.
The "Greater Serbia" concept was initially the cause of conflict in Bosnia IMO. The Serbs were armed (even to the extent of distributing weapons amongst civilian populations in areas where they were planning an attack) by Serbia, they held the vast majority of the former Yugoslavian Army's (JNA) heavy weaponry and had no qualms about using it on cities, villages, whatever. The Bosnian Serbs were basically the initial aggressors, and as always in war, you reap what you sow, so the other belligerents soon lowered themselves to the same level of barbarity. Did Bosnia deserve that? Don't be ridiculous. Did they provoke it? Not at the outcome, but later in the war they did provoke atrocities in order to gain international support (particularly from the US). Did Croatia deserve it? No, but they were more guilty of rabid nationalism, and guilty of ethnic cleansing in the Krajina area of Croatia (against Serbs). The whole war was very confusing as to blame, and it was as weird as is was horrific. For example, there are records of the BIH (Bosnian government army) needing heavy artillery support in a battle against the Croats, and since they had some spare cash, they paid a BSA (Serb) artillery unit, who had plenty of shells and guns, but were short on cash, to shell the Croats for them! Well and truly weird.
Were the "west" to blame for the way the war escalated? In a way, yes. They imposed arms embargos on all belligerents, which meant that the Bosnian government could not buy arms, but the Serbs had a nice supply from Belgrade, so they weren't so badly affected. The UN must accept its share of the blame, through its half-hearted "peacekeeping" mission. The troops serving under UN command were bound by ridiculous rules of engagement, which often meant they witnessed atrocities they could easily have stopped, because to intervene would have made the situation politically dangerous. The UN had to be seen to "not take sides", and be "the man in the middle" in all circumstances, and this did not work IMO. NATO's more robust approach (as seen in Kosovo later) would have worked much better, and more quickly, although there may have been more casualties for the troops who went in.
Speaking from my own point of view, I served under both NATO and UN command in Bosnia, and personally believe that NATO did the job better.
Why did we have to go into Bosnia? Because we're not talking the other side of the world, we're talking a short hop on a plain. Greece is further from the UK than Bosnia, and Europe in the late 20th Century was supposed to be above this, above genocide, above horrible internecine wars, we're supposed to be better than that. We had to intervene, we could not sit back and allow concentration camps to be set up in a "civilised" European country, and I for one am glad we did get involved. Whether we like it or not, we have an obligation to not ignore the events around us. We are a fairly wealthy country, with a long history, and a reasonably good image amongst other nations of the world. We can't sit back and let bands of thugs slaughter innocent civilians a mere few hundred miles from our shores, we have an obligation to stand up and say "This is wrong!". My only regret is that we didn't do enough. We should have gone in with guns blazing, and disarmed the BSA, and the HVO by force, and had they not surrendered, we should have attacked them, with all the force that we possess (and that's a lot of force). None of the drunken militia thugs over there were brave when it came to facing British troops in open combat, and when there were firefights, they got slaughtered. They were very brave when attacking a farmhouse full of unarmed civilians, or murdering prisoners, but not so brave when faced by a Warrior full of infantry. We should have blown them to pieces.
As for tearing your post to shreds, no mate. You do have a valid point, and just because I think it's wrong, you're still entitled to your opinion! There's plenty wrong with my views too, I am biased totally against the Serbs, because they started the whole mess, so I'm not objective at all when it comes to Bosnia. Serbia doesn;'t deserve the name "Civilised nation" until they hand over Mladic and Karadzic, and hopefully they'll die in prison too. Just like Milosevic. As for Milosevic, well, I hope it hurt, and he died a slow painful death.
DL -
Message 3
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Hi DL,
Good points as ever and I like to get the mil-side of the affair.
Not saying it was anyone other than Serbia's fault for war starting and especially those who (like most of these war's main players) realised they could profit from it. I am talking more so about the later stages of the war when it wasn't so a much a "war" as a conflict to decide which group of people live in which village with which flag hung up outside (in an ethnic sense).
There can be no excuse for what happened as Srebrinica (excuse a dodgy spelling) and it was here where we saw NATO at it's worst even if it wasn't all the fault of the troops on the ground and it's here that the fault of the politicians lie - also the arms embargo was crazy when you realised that the JNA would be tooled up with lots of good kit as they were an army whereas the BIH and HNA were just a group ex-soldiers with whatever came to hand.
But in Croatia's case they kept it quiet that kit was supplied by the Bundeswehr and Luftwafffe to keep them operational aand so as to emphesise they role as "victims" which they were but not in the "100%" way they were portrayed as.
I think the Bosnian's in places like Sarajevo were victims of politcians of all pursuasions realising this was their time to make their historical stand. And I'm talking Western politican's too.
It is a shame that this happened and I do think there is much merit in saying "yeah lets send in 16th Airborne and 1st Armoured" but I wonder where the limit for this kind of intervention is -and this was part of the reason I launched this thread.
Not saying I'm an expert on Kosovan history but I do know that Kosovan's outnumber Serbs by a large majority and as Serbia didn't want to hand it over then all of a sudden we've got a war on it's hands. But surely Kosovan politicians must know they had (a) no chance of winning their fight without NATO intervention, (b) if the Serbs had been led by anyone other than Milosevic I think they'd have gotton away with it (c) they didn't even have a real army (or real history) to base their nation on. I know this doesn't excuse anyone from killing civilians but both sides did it.
I guess in the same way to an extent Kurdish Northern Iraq is in the same position - if we were going to crack down Saddam's ass then we should have done so after Halabja and straight away - now the Kurds have lived under NATO protection for 10-15 years and expect independance - are they going to pay for all this protection we are giving them in their quasi-independant state or is it all free under the guise of protecting them from Iraqi forces? -
Message 4
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 5
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Re: Message 3.
Falcon,
thank you for your intereting reply to Darklight.
"But in Croatia's case they kept it quiet that kit was supplied by the Bundeswehr and Luftwaffe". I saw it somewhere in a German documentary: and I remember that as in an old detective they showed a sheet from a notebook, where invisible text was printed in "relief" by the pressure of the ballpoint of the former removed sheet.
Falcon, it is the first time since the documentary that I see it again quoted. What are your sources? I am interested in it. I saw also a British documentery in four episodes from the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ?, Channel 4? where a former General of Izetbegovic, testified that he was not allowed by Izetbegovic to come to the help of a oppressed village by the Serbs or were it the Croats, because "atrocities would spark the help of the Western world, especially the US. If you have some information about this documentary too?
Falcon, and I already mentioned it to Darklight too, the best and most neutral survey of the -
Message 6
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Hi Paul - good to hear you on this one.
I have read in a couple of books two of which were written in relation to the European Far-Right. One suggested that it was right-wing German military contacts were ferrying ex-GDR kit through holding companies to Croatia and the other was suggesting that far-right mercs. were supplied to Croatia (whether or not they were effective but that's not the point).
I will try my best to dig out the title of the first but the second was "Fuhrer-Ex" by Ingo Hasselbach. I ahd also picked up this infor through aviation mags. which cleary showed MiG-21's which hadn't been painted properly and you could see the diamond shapes where the GDR crest had been i.e they hadn't even been registered as Luftwaffe aircraft.
I have seen plenty of pictures in various "military related" publications showing Croatians in German Army camo kit (which looked a tad new) which I know doesn't say everything but this was a new nation with little or no military budget and here was a lot of kit that once operational made one hell of a difference.
Have you read any of John Simpson's accounts of the war in his two biogs? Very good reading indeed. -
Message 7
Posted by FALCON16 (U3481243) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Rubbish, you talk rubbish you arse
-
Message 8
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Addendum message 4.
Falcon,
Some really odd happened. I suddenly couldn't post or read the message boards anymore and so I posted what I already had...(the cancelling of Message 4?)
To go further: the best and the most neutral and I read a lot about the Yugoslavian civil war, was the Dutch report about the fall of Srebrenica.
Click on "The complete report" to have it all.
Kind regards. -
Message 9
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Hi Paul,
When I get time I'll have a read of that cheers.
I wish everyone had just been honest - maybe somekind of truth and reconciliation commission needs to be set up - not sure how it'll work bearing in mind we are now looking at three countries and the parts of Bosnia that no one controls.
What do you think though about the other nations that we've involved ourselves in who have been somewhat undeserving of our help - I appreciate the Balkans comments but I was wondering about the other part of the post too.
But as well as countries that have been "undeserving of our help" there are some where we should go "no questions asked" to coin a phrase - Zimbabwae for example. -
Message 10
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
NewcF15,
About your message :
"Hi Paul,
When I get time I'll have a read of that cheers...........................
But as well as countries that have been "undeserving of our help" there are some where we should go "no questions asked" to coin a phrase - Zimbabwae for example".
By going into Zimbabwe you will be immediately accused of trying to re-introduce "Colonialism".
The people in the Central and Southern African countries wanted independence, they got it and just look what it brought them. -
Message 11
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Re: Message 2.
Darklight,
thank you very much for this thought-provoking reply.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 12
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Fair enough comments - I think we should as people with UK passports are at threat there - if it was anywhere but Africa I think we'd have done it.
-
Message 13
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Re: message 3.
Falcon,
in Srebrenica the Dutch were still UN troops and as Darklight said that was a big difference for engaging rules. I agree it were the same troops?, they only painted the letters IFOR? or was it SFOR? In Kosovo it was KFOR.
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 14
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Re: message 6.
Falcon,
thank you very much for this information. Did you or anyone else have no information about the British series I have seen and that I mentioned about the Yugoslavian war?
Kind regards. -
Message 15
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Hi all,
Just been reading posts re: the Balkans and this has led me to wonder - humanitarian action aside in the Balkans was this one of the least deserving areas where we've involved our troops in recent times. I'm not saying the innocent people that were massacred deserved it by any means and I am in no way say that it wasn't anything but Serbia's and Milosvic's (and his cronies) fault but did the actions of the other nations (and our own where we need to take blame) cause as much trouble as the initial Milosovic push for a "Greater Serbia".
I mean fighting back is one thing but allowing the situation to get so out of hand that it spread from Croatia through Bosnia and into Kosovo was "the west's" fault as much as anyone's I guess but do you think that everyone made the situ. worse knowing that NATO countries, the EU and the rest of the world would foot the reconstruction build so used the war as excuse to do as much damage as possible to each other - without any consequence other than the loss of innocent life.
On a more general note where (if anywhere) do you think we've sent our troops/forces that didn't deserve our help.
DL, I'd appreciate your comments here even if you do want to tear my post apart....Β
yeah, we should give the whole area back to those who lived there 1st (just like were trying to do in "isreal") and of course by there 1st i mean the celts! or, to be less vague, me! -
Message 16
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Hi,
I did see bits and pieces of the UK series but if I remember it was an awkward time re: work.
I think it'll turn up on UK History (the cable repeats channel of Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ History programmes on Cable TV)
If I remember right the UN missions operated as IFOR (Implementation), SFOR (Security??) and KFOR (Kosovo).
The UN missions there couldn't react unless they were fired upon which in the case of the Dutch peacekeepers was a problem - although I have heard that there (and I don't know if the report will confirm it) that Dutch UN were corrupt and sold some of their equipment to Serbs.
I always thought it was pretty cool of the Russians to turn up and even if it wasn't the most diplomatic thing for them to do what a shock it was. -
Message 17
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Re: message 9.
Falcon,
hmm, Zimbabwe for instance? The West has to reckon with the revitalised new Russia and China IMO. Perhaps they will not make any objection as there is no oil overthere? But perhaps they will call for compensations in other "dossiers" where they are involved. Belo Russia and Cheznia springs to mind? For China Taiwan?
Falcon, I have due to my backlog no time to discuss it in depth and will let it for other contributors.
Kind regards. -
Message 18
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Re: Message 16.
Falcon,
thanks again for the information. I did already research for it on the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ but didn't found it.
SFOR was Stabilisation Force, if I remember it well.
For the role of the Dutch read the report I mentioned from the NIOD (Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie) (Dutch institute for war documentation). Believe me it says it all and it is not embellishing the Dutch as it was set up by order of the Dutch investigating commission, if I remember it well. I am a Belgian and not a Dutch. So I don't know that much about this commission. But this report coincides with all "honest" information I read before about the conlicts in the former Yugoslavia.
Kind regards. -
Message 19
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Hi Paul - came to me the minute I read your post (in that ironice english way
)
I think Zimbabwae would indeed be controversial to the rest of the world but not to Britain - it's an irony that our country sometimes operates that way - I think you have a point re: Bielroussia and Chechnya - I guess it comes down to in a lot of cases is there going to be anyone else to sort out the mess. And the fact the Balkans were on our doorstop so to speak.
I reckon there is a case for military intervention in Burma/Myanamar if democracy is the "best thing since sliced bread" and there surely isn't a reason a multi-national force couldn't do it rather quickly.
Any other nominations? -
Message 20
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 15th March 2006
Interesting views guys,
Paul, as ever you are probably the best informed person on the political background to the war than anyone else I have met on these boards!
Falcon, it was Implementation Force (IFOR) and Stabilisation Force (SFOR), and as it was pointed out the Srebrenica massacres happened under the UN's rules, with Dutch troops who were supposedly guarding the Srebrenica safe havem. The actions of the Dutch have been analysed to death, and I'd say that it is safe to say that had they stood their ground, then who knows, maybe the outcome would have been different, but maybe they'd have just been slaughtered. However, I don't know of any direct confrontations between UN troops and any of the sides involved where the UN troops were slaughtered, usually political solutions were found. The Brits had a much more robust attitude towards peacekeeping operations than many of the other contingents (They were nicknamed "Shootbat" rather than "Britbat"-British Battalion by many, because of their "energetic" returning of fire when directly attacked) and my own view is that had there been a company of British armoured infantry in Srebrenica, it may not have happened. However, that is just conjecture. -
Message 21
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Wednesday, 15th March 2006
Hi Paul and DL,
I reckon what we can deduce from this that in Europe and some other operations that the UN peacekeeping forces have been woefully illadvised and as I mentioned at the outset that has to be the politicians fault.
Not sure if you'll agree with me but do you think that Bosnia should have been handled by an EU Security Force rather than the UN? Or as did happen NATO with a UN mandate.
Do you think that the era of UN "peacekeeping" forces is over - after all a lot of countries just don't trust blue helmets. Maybe they don't trust NATO or the EU either but if the UN ask NATO (or the EU) to go somewhere to keep the peace at least NATO (EU) would be able to say "yes-but on our realistic terms of engagement" or "no". -
Message 22
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 15th March 2006
Re: Message 20.
Darklight,
thank you very much for your kind reply.
Warm regards. -
Message 23
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 15th March 2006
Re: Message 21.
Falcon,
and I think Darklight will agree with me (in that (smile)), it was a gradual approach.
After all it was if there was no UN backing an invasion of a "sovereign" country.
And if some one do it without the UN, hell is too small...(I see Matt, clapping in his hands upright in a standing ovation).
And in the UN the Yeltsin Russia had a lot to say...
I made already a thread about it: if the NATO members had more been dictating the conditions? I then said the best moment was dictating a peace with force of weapons after the recognition of Croatia.
But I don't remember, have to seek it back: had the Russians recognized Croatia? And they still backed Serbia in the UN. So you had to have a bombing of Belgrade? What would that give with the Russians? I agree the Yeltsin Russia wasn't the Putin Russia, but nevertheless they were still the second largest nuclear might in the world.
At the end the atrocities were that high that even Russia was ready to push the Serbs a bit.
It is easy to blame the diplomats, especially the Americans, but Holbrooke and later Albright hadn't an easy diplomatic role.
Yes NATO under UN mandate, but Russia and China must agree to it all. And that's always political negociating.
I think Ivory coast? and another West-African country, have had a "politional" French and British force under UN mandate with the option to shoot to keep order?
Kind regards. -
Message 24
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 16th March 2006
I think you may be thinking of Sierra Leone Paul, where there was a fairly sizable British deployment (in effect peacekeeping, but not under UN command).
With regards Bosnia, I think that mission is now under EU control. Back when the war started it was purely a UN mission (using troops from many nations), and as the mission began to fail NATO became more and more involved. The difference is that NATO is a purely military-political alliance, not a peacekeeping force. NATO has, like it or not, a political agenda, whereas UN peacekeepers are supposed to be totally neutral. NATO always acts in the interests of NATO and its member nations, not in the interests of the UN. The fact that Bosnia is so close to NATO countries meant that an escalation of the conflict could threaten member nations. After all, Italy is only just across the Adriatic. So, an escalating war in the Balkans represents a clear threat to the stability and security of Europe (and therefore NATO). That's basically why they got involved (eventually). Had Bosnia been somewhere near Outer Mongolia or Uruguay, then it would have been highly unlikely that NATO troops (even under UN command) would have been deployed.
Cheers -
Message 25
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 16th March 2006
Re: Message 24.
Darklight,
thank you very much for your interesting reply about Bosnia.
Dark, you know me (smile), I had to look it up about Sierra Leone.
Sierra Leone.
1999 UNAMSIL. May 2000: British troops in operation Palliser. The UN troops withdraw at the end of 2005.
Cote d'Ivoire.
25 december 1999 military coup. Several thousand French and West-African troops remain in Ivory Coast to maintain peace and facilitate the disarmement, demobilisation and rehabilitation process.
Other source: The French on their own a stabilisation force of about 4,000 men: Licorne. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) about 1,500 men.
April 4 2004 ECOWAS became part of the UN operation UNOCI now about 7,100 men. Licorne and UNOCI coordinate closely to fulfill the UN mnadate. The mandate is now extended until Dec. 2006.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 26
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 16th March 2006
Paul,
Are you a professional researcher? If not, then you surely should be!
Best wishes,
DL
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.