BalkanForum - das Forum für alle Balkanesen
Erweiterte Suche
Kontakt
BalkanForum - das Forum für alle Balkanesen
Benutzerliste

Willkommen bei BalkanForum - das Forum für alle Balkanesen.
Seite 1 von 13 1234511 ... LetzteLetzte
Ergebnis 1 bis 10 von 129

Give War a Chance?

Erstellt von Schiptar, 31.01.2006, 16:43 Uhr · 128 Antworten · 3.394 Aufrufe

  1. #1
    Avatar von Schiptar

    Registriert seit
    30.04.2005
    Beiträge
    14.116

    Give War a Chance?

    Hier eine provokante These eines Politologen, demzufolge UN-Interventionen bewaffnete Konflikte nur künstlich in die Länge ziehen, anstatt daß alles kurz und heftig vorbeigeht:

    ---

    Give War a Chance

    Edward N. Luttwak

    PREMATURE PEACEMAKING

    AN UNPLEASANT truth often overlooked is that although war is a great evil, it does have a great virtue: it can resolve political conflicts and lead to peace. This can happen when all belligerents become exhausted or when one wins decisively. Either way the key is that the fighting must continue until a resolution is reached. War brings peace only after passing a culminating phase of violence. Hopes of military success must fade for accommodation to become more attractive than further combat.

    Since the establishment of the United Nations and the enshrinement of great-power politics in its Security Council, however, wars among lesser powers have rarely been allowed to run their natural course. Instead, they have typically been interrupted early on, before they could burn themselves out and establish the preconditions for a lasting settlement. Cease-fires and armistices have frequently been imposed under the aegis of the Security Council in order to halt fighting. NATO's intervention in the Kosovo crisis follows this pattern.

    But a cease-fire tends to arrest war-induced exhaustion and lets belligerents reconstitute and rearm their forces. It intensifies and prolongs the struggle once the cease-fire ends—and it does usually end. This was true of the Arab-Israeli war of 1948-49, which might have come to closure in a matter of weeks if two cease-fires ordained by the Security Council had not let the combatants recuperate. It has recently been true in the Balkans. Imposed cease-fires frequently interrupted the fighting between Serbs and Croats in Krajina, between the forces of the rump Yugoslav federation and the Croat army, and between the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims in Bosnia. Each time, the opponents used the pause to recruit, train, and equip additional forces for further combat, prolonging the war and widening the scope of its killing and destruction. Imposed armistices, meanwhile—again, unless followed by negotiated peace accords—artificially freeze conflict and perpetuate a state of war indefinitely by shielding the weaker side from the consequences of refusing to make concessions for peace.

    The Cold War provided compelling justification for such behavior by the two superpowers, which sometimes collaborated in coercing less-powerful belligerents to avoid being drawn into their conflicts and clashing directly. Although imposed cease-fires ultimately did increase the total quantity of warfare among the lesser powers, and armistices did perpetuate states of war, both outcomes were clearly lesser evils (from a global point of view) than the possibility of nuclear war. But today, neither Americans nor Russians are inclined to intervene competitively in the wars of lesser powers, so the unfortunate consequences of interrupting war persist while no greater danger is averted. It might be best for all parties to let minor wars burn themselves out.

    THE PROBLEMS OF PEACEKEEPERS

    TODAY CEASE-FIRES and armistices are imposed on lesser powers by multilateral agreement—not to avoid great-power competition but for essentially disinterested and indeed frivolous motives, such as television audiences' revulsion at harrowing scenes of war. But this, perversely, can systematically prevent the transformation of war into peace. The Dayton accords are typical of the genre: they have condemned Bosnia to remain divided into three rival armed camps, with combat suspended momentarily but a state of hostility prolonged indefinitely. Since no side is threatened by defeat and loss, none has a sufficient incentive to negotiate a lasting settlement; because no path to peace is even visible, the dominant priority is to prepare for future war rather than to reconstruct devastated economies and ravaged societies. Uninterrupted war would certainly have caused further suffering and led to an unjust outcome from one perspective or another, but it would also have led to a more stable situation that would have let the postwar era truly begin. Peace takes hold only when war is truly over.

    A variety of multilateral organizations now make it their business to intervene in other peoples' wars. The defining characteristic of these entities is that they insert themselves in war situations while refusing to engage in combat. In the long run this only adds to the damage. If the United Nations helped the strong defeat the weak faster and more decisively, it would actually enhance the peacemaking potential of war. But the first priority of U.N. peacekeeping contingents is to avoid casualties among their own personnel. Unit commanders therefore habitually appease the locally stronger force, accepting its dictates and tolerating its abuses. This appeasement is not strategically purposeful, as siding with the stronger power overall would be; rather, it merely reflects the determination of each U.N. unit to avoid confrontation. The final result is to prevent the emergence of a coherent outcome, which requires an imbalance of strength sufficient to end the fighting.

    Peacekeepers chary of violence are also unable to effectively protect civilians who are caught up in the fighting or deliberately attacked. At best, U.N. peacekeeping forces have been passive spectators to outrages and massacres, as in Bosnia and Rwanda; at worst, they collaborate with it, as Dutch U.N. troops did in the fall of Srebrenica by helping the Bosnian Serbs separate the men of military age from the rest of the population.

    The very presence of U.N. forces, meanwhile, inhibits the normal remedy of endangered civilians, which is to escape from the combat zone. Deluded into thinking that they will be protected, civilians in danger remain in place until it is too late to flee. During the 1992-94 siege of Sarajevo, appeasement interacted with the pretense of protection in an especially perverse manner: U.N. personnel inspected outgoing flights to prevent the escape of Sarajevo civilians in obedience to a cease-fire agreement negotiated with the locally dominant Bosnian Serbs—who habitually violated that deal. The more sensible, realistic response to a raging war would have been for the Muslims to either flee the city or drive the Serbs out.

    Institutions such as the European Union, the Western European Union, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe lack even the U.N.'s rudimentary command structure and personnel, yet they too now seek to intervene in warlike situations, with predictable consequences. Bereft of forces even theoretically capable of combat, they satisfy the interventionist urges of member states (or their own institutional ambitions) by sending unarmed or lightly armed "observer" missions, which have the same problems as U.N. peacekeeping missions, only more so.

    Military organizations such as NATO or the West African Peacekeeping Force (ECOMOG, recently at work in Sierra Leone) are capable of stopping warfare. Their interventions still have the destructive consequence of prolonging the state of war, but they can at least protect civilians from its consequences. Even that often fails to happen, however, because multinational military commands engaged in disinterested interventions tend to avoid any risk of combat, thereby limiting their effectiveness. U.S. troops in Bosnia, for example, repeatedly failed to arrest known war criminals passing through their checkpoints lest this provoke confrontation.

    Multinational commands, moreover, find it difficult to control the quality and conduct of member states' troops, which can reduce the performance of all forces involved to the lowest common denominator. This was true of otherwise fine British troops in Bosnia and of the Nigerian marines in. Sierra Leone. The phenomenon of troop degradation can rarely be detected by external observers, although its consequences are abundantly visible in the litter of dead, mutilated, raped, and tortured victims that attends such interventions. The true state of affairs is illuminated by the rare exception, such as the vigorous Danish tank battalion in Bosnia that replied to any attack on it by firing back in full force, quickly stopping the fighting.

    THE FIRST "POST-HEROIC" WAR

    ALL PRIOR examples of disinterested warfare and its crippling limitations, however, have been cast into shadow by NATO's current intervention against Serbia for the sake of Kosovo. The alliance has relied on airpower alone to minimize the risk of NATO casualties, bombing targets in Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo for weeks without losing a single pilot. This seemingly miraculous immunity from Yugoslav anti-aircraft guns and missiles was achieved by multiple layers of precautions. First, for all the noise and imagery suggestive of a massive operation, very few strike sorties were actually flown during the first few weeks. That reduced the risks to pilots and aircraft but of course also limited the scope of the bombing to a mere fraction of NATO s potential. Second, the air campaign targeted air-defense systems first and foremost, minimizing present and future allied casualties, though at the price of very limited destruction and the loss of any shock effect. Third, NATO avoided most anti-aircraft weapons by releasing munitions not from optimal altitudes but from an ultra-safe 15,000 feet or more. Fourth, the alliance greatly restricted its operations in less-than-perfect weather conditions. NATO officials complained that dense clouds were impeding the bombing campaign, often limiting nightly operations to a few cruise-missile strikes against fixed targets of known location. In truth, what the cloud ceiling prohibited was not all bombing—low-altitude attacks could easily have taken place—but rather perfectly safe bombing.

    On the ground far beneath the high-flying planes, small groups of Serb soldiers and police in armored vehicles were terrorizing hundreds of thousands of Albanian Kosovars. NATO has a panoply of aircraft designed for finding and destroying such vehicles. All its major powers have anti-tank helicopters, some equipped to operate without base support. But no country offered to send them into Kosovo when the ethnic cleansing began—after all, they might have been shot down. When U.S. Apache helicopters based in Germany were finally ordered to Albania, in spite of the vast expenditure devoted to their instantaneous "readiness" over the years, they required more than three weeks of "predeployment preparations" to make the journey. Six weeks into the war, the Apaches had yet to fly their first mission, although two had already crashed during training. More than mere bureaucratic foot-dragging was responsible for this inor-dinate delay: the U.S. Army insisted that the Apaches could not operate on their own, but would need the support of heavy rocket barrages to suppress Serb anti-aircraft weapons. This created a much larger logistical load than the Apaches alone, and an additional, evidently welcome delay.

    Even before the Apache saga began, NATO already had aircraft deployed on Italian bases that could have done the job just as well: U.S. A-IO "Warthogs" built around their powerful .30 mm antitank guns and British Royal Air Force Harriers ideal for low-altitude bombing at close range. Neither was employed, again because it could not be done in perfect safety. In the calculus of the NATO democracies, the immediate possibility of saving thousands of Albanians from massacre and hundreds of thousands from deportation was obviously not worth the lives of a few pilots. That may reflect unavoidable political reality, but it demonstrates how even a large-scale disinterested intervention can fail to achieve its ostensibly humanitarian aim. It is worth wondering whether the Kosovars would have been better off had NATO simply done nothing.

    [usw.]

    AUS: "FOREIGN AFFAIRS", JULY/AUGUST 1999, 36-44.
    EDWARD N. LUTTWAK is Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

  2. #2
    Gast829627
    häh????? :? :? :? :? nix verstehen shiptar :? :? :? diese scheizzzzzee bitte auf deutsch wenns keine umstände macht 8)

  3. #3
    Avatar von Schiptar

    Registriert seit
    30.04.2005
    Beiträge
    14.116
    Oder Englisch lernen? 8)

  4. #4
    Avatar von Travar_Mirko

    Registriert seit
    27.01.2006
    Beiträge
    306
    It depense who the Kosovars are. If with that you mean just Albanains in Kosovo, then the last line definatly is true. But if we consider all the inhabitans in Kosovo as Kosovars, then answer me what did NATO do to prevent postwar masacres of serb population? Double standards?

  5. #5
    Mare-Car
    Was der kerl übern Kosovo schreibt, absoluter schwachsinn.

  6. #6
    Avatar von Schiptar

    Registriert seit
    30.04.2005
    Beiträge
    14.116
    Zitat Zitat von Travar_Mirko
    It depense who the Kosovars are. If with that you mean just Albanains in Kosovo, then the last line definatly is true. But if we consider all the inhabitans in Kosovo as Kosovars, then answer me what did NATO do to prevent postwar masacres of serb population? Double standards?
    Well, it says "It is worth wondering whether the Kosovars would have been better off had NATO simply done nothing", right?
    So in that case he says perhaps it would have been better even for the Albanian population of Kosovo if NATO had done nothing.
    If he's not even sure that the intervention helped the Albanians at all, he's even less likely to think that it had any good effects for the Serbs too, wouldn't you say?

  7. #7
    Avatar von Schiptar

    Registriert seit
    30.04.2005
    Beiträge
    14.116
    Zitat Zitat von Mare-Car
    Was der kerl übern Kosovo schreibt, absoluter schwachsinn.
    Meinst wohl besonders diese Stelle: "On the ground far beneath the high-flying planes, small groups of Serb soldiers and police in armored vehicles were terrorizing hundreds of thousands of Albanian Kosovars."

    Wäre interessant, ob er so was auch heute noch schreiben würde... :?

  8. #8
    Avatar von Travar_Mirko

    Registriert seit
    27.01.2006
    Beiträge
    306
    Could be true - the refugee disaster started when NATO attack was in progress. But Albanians made profit out off all thing on the end, serbian population has got only batine.

  9. #9
    Avatar von Schiptar

    Registriert seit
    30.04.2005
    Beiträge
    14.116
    Zitat Zitat von Travar_Mirko
    Could be true - the refugee disaster started when NATO attack was in progress. But Albanians made profit out off all thing on the end, serbian population has got only batine.
    What do you think of the general idea of the article, though? Should UN keep out of these conflicts and let the enemies fight it out?

  10. #10

    Registriert seit
    01.01.2006
    Beiträge
    2.357
    Zitat Zitat von Travar_Mirko
    Could be true - the refugee disaster started when NATO attack was in progress. But Albanians made profit out off all thing on the end, serbian population has got only batine.
    Agree!NATO Scum only protected the Albanians, they attacked serbian hospitals, bridges and so on. Why they didnt make a war man to man, no they must go bombing our cities

Seite 1 von 13 1234511 ... LetzteLetzte

Ähnliche Themen

  1. Afrikas Chance
    Von Yunan im Forum Religion und Soziales
    Antworten: 4
    Letzter Beitrag: 19.09.2011, 00:37
  2. Chance für die Nachbarn
    Von ooops im Forum Politik
    Antworten: 0
    Letzter Beitrag: 24.12.2009, 17:56
  3. verspielte chance
    Von MIC SOKOLI im Forum Sport
    Antworten: 6
    Letzter Beitrag: 13.11.2009, 17:28
  4. Hätte ich ne Chance Mod zu werden?
    Von Karim-Benzema im Forum Rakija
    Antworten: 82
    Letzter Beitrag: 07.06.2009, 02:38