Srebrenica: Ten years ago

Too bad the UN was too cowardly to use the word genocide

 

Dutch Peacekeepers Haunted by Srenbrenica

The months and years that preceded Clinton's/NATO's ultimate (correct) decision to stop the war in what was once Yugoslavia are shameful: the radical left thought that the only reason the US wanted to get involved in the region was so that "NATO could flex its muscle" (an actual reason I was given by some moron I knew), the far right thought that the US should not "be in the business of nation-building," and everyone in between couldn't be bothered to care.

 

I was at Srebrenica while as a peacekeeper during SFOR around the year 2000. I wish I had a scanner to show you the pictures that I took. The places that were described in the articles are true because I saw them, myself. So many people were killed and dumped into the nearby river, that the bodies clogged the dam that was down-stream. Terrible.

 

A tragic event that caused many including myself to seriously doubt the UN's abilty to stop any armed conflict once it starts.

 

2000? I'm quite curious about those pictures then, I know people who returned by that time.

Srebrenica was a total failure, and it's been a bit of national trauma for my country and showed all the powerlessness and lack of coordination a UN operation can have. Still, the UN is the only alternative for a world ruled by US whims, enough reason to try to put a face on that institution and give it more power.

 

I mean't that I patrolled there during the year 2000/01 and took pics of the city. A good portion of it has not been rebuilt...at least when I was there. There were also archiologists who were working for the UN over there that were exumming a couple of mass grave sites that we went to. But I wasn't allowed to take pictures of that though.

 

As flawed is the UN, let's remember that the world would be an even more brutal and violent place without it (sounds unthinkable but given the human nature and the means that exist).

This said, it's always important to enhance the UN in order that they do what they're supposed to do.

I understand that it is no easy decision to get forces involved in such a mess, but it should be a matter of weeks, not years to decide or at least do something significative. In the end, we had the massacres and the necessity of involvement.

 

Canada was the predecessor to Holland at Srebrenica. Our troops pulled out because the UN plan was deemed unsustainable. Check out the politics involved in that plan, the who's and the why's. We didn't learn from it, and Canada (and Belgium), who managed to keep our guilt over Srebrenica to manageable levels, was to face the same trauma as the Dutch experience at Srebrenica in Rwanda a few years later. Peacekeeping is a much dirtier business than invading third world countries. There is no way to spin the conflict, and the countries willing to do it, rarely have the resouces to stem the tide if and when it goes bad.

 

Indeed. Thanks for that.

 

Biggest problem for the dutch soldiers was a bad mandate. The UN made errors in judging the possibility of an attack on Srebrenica. Although there were signs of an oncoming attack, a proposition to replace the dutch troops by a combat experienced and heavily armed Nordbat, never made it passed the UN safety council, as they were afraid to provoke the serbs. Dutchbat instead, used lightweight arms, were outnumbered and weren't mentally prepared for an attack on that scale, as it was not in the role assigned to them. Airsupport, which was promised in case of an escalation, came too late.

There is, I think, also a less UN-centered explanation. The soldiers Holland sent represented a society that had grown anti-islamic feelings at the time, a thing that wasn't acknowledged by our government and media who at the time chose to have a more politically correct leftwing view of dutch multicultural society. So there was a huge gap in the way the government and media viewed the muslims and the way the soldiers did, the latter never identified themselves with the people they were supposed to protect.

For example, on leaving, the soldiers got the usual instructions about venerial diseases. Risks though, the officer told, would probably be low, considering the hairgrowth of the local girls. It's sentiments like that that grew when Dutchbat turned out to be incapable of stopping muslim fighters from using Srebrenica as a hideout. It made many frustrated dutch soldiers, including the commanding officer, sympathize with the serbs to a considerable degree. It helps explaining why they chose not to risk their lives in protecting the muslim population.

 

The biggest problem for the Dutch soldiers was a lack of heavy armor. A more than a few M1A2's would have made quite the impression on the Serbs. Nothing like a hole in the head to get them to change their mind.

It's not rocket science.

 

Yup, that + the other stuff I wrote. Danish leopards would have done that trick too by the way. And since I don't disagree with you, you might want to save the look-at-me-being-a-no-bvllshit-cowboy statement for times I don't.

 

Oh let me have my fun.

To make a larger point, I really don't have much simpathy for Europe in this area. They set themselves up. They blame runles on engagement or other administrative aspects. The simple fact of the matter is that even combined, their armies couldn't stand up to the Serbs. Clinton wanted to stay out of the conflict because he felt that his predicesor was too involved in foreign policy and Europe lept at the chance to show it's ability. They thought that with a "show of force" and with diplomacy that they would be able to keep everyone in line. Then the Serbs called their bluff.

Europe gives the US a hard time because we don't place as much faith in diplomacy. Well we have good reason not to.

 

LOL

 

Utter nonsense... there is a good reason why the NL decided to send Marines to Iraq last summer instead of regulars. If we would have had Marines in Srebrenica things would have been different. It would have been a messy situation, but I'm quite sure things would never have gotten out of hand the way they did now.

Peacekeeping is easier when you pack a heavy enough punch to give both sides a kicking if necessary.

In this case the organization was terrible, and the people present did not have anywhere near the firepower (or any material for that matter due to poor logistics) to even tickle the Serbs.

 

The US was ready to intervene at numerous times during the war, but they were blocked by the French and the British.

 

No, not early on, but the last operations in the summer of 95 were executed with the full American backing. In the end America made a huge mistake in stopping the Bosnian-Croatian offensive in the fall of 95 which could have liberated the whole of Bosnia.

Instead a tie was called; the results of ethnic cleansing were accepted through the borders of entities with almost state like characteristics. This ending of the war has screwed up Bosnia for decades and might end up causing another war.

 

BTW, the survivors are sueing the Netherlands. Ridiculous. The way I see it, the UN (and France) owes both them and the Netherlands an apology and should learn a lesson... if you're going to keep the peace you better be ready to use brute force when challenged. It's really not that hard.

I have good hope that we learned our lesson.

 

So the lesson learned is A) bring bigger guns and B) don't let the UN get involved. It sounds like we all agree.

 

Yup.

Nope... just see A and let it be clear that UN peacekeeping troops shoot to kill without taking sides when threatened. Anyone who does not agree can stay at home, simple as that.

Some things actually are quite simple and are only made harder by trying to be 'diplomatic'. The issue should not be 'being diplomatic', it should be 'being just and transparent'.

 

There was also resistance at home. Many people, maily conservatives, didn't want to intervene at all. They said there was no gain for US intervention. The same thing happened when Kosova started.