Are your for or against NATO intervention in Bosnia? For many people, this is a simple question that warrants a simple answer. But for me, it’s not that easy.
I have always been against American intervention in foreign wars. Regardless of U.S. policy, I have never seen the point in sending our troops into a strange country to fight in a strange war. It is very important to establish peace, but should American lives be the price for that peace?
When the United States initially started sending troops to Bosnia, I felt no different. The war in the Balkans is a civil war; the U.S. should not have any involvement.
This summer, NATO began using air strikes as a means to force the Serbs to pull out heavy artillery from Sarajevo and stop the Bosnian genocide. This effort to create peace resulted in the downing of an American pilot, who was stranded in an area near Banja Luka for six days, among other civilian casualties.
Although these first air strikes were short lived, NATO was again provoked into action more than two weeks ago when Serbs shelled a marketplace area in Sarajevo, a massacre which resulted in 43 deaths. So, for two weeks, with only a day or two of cease-fire, NATO pounded Serbian targets, including antiaircraft systems, fuel depots, an ammunition factory and ammunition dump in areas surrounding Sarajevo, as well as the Bosnian Serb headquarters in Pale and strategic sites near Tuzla, Mostar and Gorazde. Last Sunday, NATO forces launched tomahawk missiles at certain sites.
NATO’s mission remains to force the Serbs to withdraw their artillery from Sarajevo and establish peace in a country torn apart by war. It may have taken two weeks of heavy bombing tainted with accusations that NATO hit civilian sites, but yesterday the vision of peace took one step closer to becoming a reality.
Serbia’s leader, Slobodan Milosevic, made the pledge to withdraw heavy artillery from around Sarajevo. As a result of this pledge, NATO called a 12 hour cease-fire to give Serbs time to comply with the agreement.
Finally, it seems like NATO efforts at peace are getting somewhere. Yet the steps the former Yugoslavia has made towards peace are shaky, at best, and have been wrought with violence and lost lives. When I think about this, the thought of U.S. intervention in such a war makes me sick.
Yet, on the other hand, I can also see what good the American intervention in the civil war has done.
Many of the air strikes come out of Aviano Air Base in Northern Italy, which is also where my boyfriend is stationed in the Air Force. Although he may never be sent into Bosnia, he is directly involved in the mission.
While he and others on the base are getting tired of pulling extra shifts and being on 24-hour call, they all have a certain pride in taking part in the “peace” mission. When they enlisted in the military, they took an oath to “serve and protect the Constitution,” and that is just what they are doing in Bosnia.
Whenever I talk to him, he tells me about all the good they are doing for humanity. When I hear this, I start thinking that our role in Bosnia is not a bad thing. After all, the role of the U.S. has always been to protect humanity, and isn’t this what we are doing?
But as soon as I hang up the phone or log off my e-mail account and turn on the television, my doubts return.
One look at the pictures of bombs exploding, and I condemn war once again. The fact is, I don’t know what to think about our involvement in Bosnia.
The past two weeks have seen nothing but violence and bloodshed, but at the same time, they have brought a country closer to peace than it has been since the collapse of the Communist government.
All I know is that I want to try to bring peace to a violent world. But is risking the lives of NATO soldiers worth peace in a distant land? I don’t know the answer to this question. Perhaps I never will.
