I've lurked on this list for some time, but have never written. Now, I feel it
worthwhile to dip my oar in the water, as it were. Hello to everybody out
there.

Here's my thoughts (as an American, viewing NATO as dependent on the US
poliically and militarily) :

1. Ground forces are objectionable for 2 reasons
        a)  Vietnam was a public relations disaster for the US government.
        b)  The Gulf "War" was a public relations coup for the US government.

There is no way to achieve the level of success attained against Iraq dealing
with Yugoslavia, keeping in mind geographical, technilogical, and logistical
differences. They know how to fight a modern war, and have conditions
favorable for fighting one.

Any result less than the Iraqi level of success will draw immediate
comparisons with Vietnam, which is the foreign relations nightmare of every
president since Ford.

Therefore, ground forces are not permissable UNLESS

        1. Air strikes are not effective
                        AND
        2. Atrocities become more grave

We are in the middle of this process of escalation. The air strikes will, of
course, do little to curb atrocities, and in fact have predictably set the
Serbs to escalation of their own kind.

Now the president can go to the nation, to the world, and say, "See? We've
tried, but now they're really becoming evil. Now I can use the "G"(enocide)
word, and people will applaud sending in ground troops." NATO is not being
overanxious. On the contrary, NATO is saving the world from another Holocaust,
heroically stepping into a hostile environment.

I think the political maneuvering is particularly clever, reminiscent of some
of FDR's finer moves. An important skill for a president is the ability to
steer a nation into war and make it think it's happy to go.

Give the man time. Some ad campaign takes a while.

John Duncan Watson