Sarajevo again?

National Review, July 20, 1992

THE SIEGE of Sarajevo has been lifted, but the problem of Serbian aggression remains. A taboo seems to have been broken on the consideration of military options. We have been wary of all the excited calls for U.S. military intervention in the Balkan war, especially those coming from liberals (the folks who brought you Vietnam). Nevertheless, we did not carp at the Administration's cautious exploration with our allies of a possible airlift to break the Serbian stranglehold on Sarajevo. We could not in good conscience advise capitulation to Serbia's brutality and insatiable appetite. Political pressures continue to mount on the Western powers to do something effective to end the fighting before it spills over into wider conflict.

Any such action must be well thought through. Our ill-fated involvement in Beirut in 1982-84 began as a "humanitarian" intervention, and went sour as the political ground shifted under our feet. Even in "humanitarian" intervention, there will be the temptation--and perhaps necessity--to suppress artillery positions threatening the enterprise. And then there will be the temptation to take even stronger action to cripple the Serbian military machine. We do not rule this out (or in) a priori, but we strongly urge that our planners think it through, several steps ahead, before plunging in.

Even the contemplation of military action was enough to remind everyone that if anything serious is involved, it can't be done without Americans in the lead. European pretensions to seriousness in the security sphere have again been deflated. Mitterrand's showboating at the airport only confirms the point. But Europeans have the pre-eminent interest in the re-establishment of order in the Balkans. So collective action in which the Europeans provide most of the ground forces even if we provide the air and naval forces--is to be preferred. But the decisive leadership role will, and must, be American.