Getting to Dayton: The Making of America's Bosnia Policy
The year of decision in Bosnia was 1995. First the Bosnian Serbs made the bid for victory that culminated with the July massacres in the Srebrenica and Zepa "safe havens" supposedly protected by the United Nations. Then the Bosnian Serbs were defeated by successful Croatian and Bosnian-Muslim offensives, which were helped by the air strikes of the now-roused NATO alliance. Daalder takes on the Washington policy story, relying on secondary sources and interviews with officials (who are named in the preface but not in the citations). His analysis of the horrendous phase up to Srebrenica's collapse is disjointed and incomplete, but the narrative becomes more tightly written and better argued as it tackles the post-Srebrenica phase, from mid-July to September, leading up to Dayton. In this account, National Security Adviser Anthony Lake is the hero who -- helped by fellow staffer Alexander Vershbow -- beat back the passive options of the State and Defense departments to craft a more robust approach for their frustrated president. Daalder contends that Richard Holbrooke "played no part in the development of the policy" but acknowledges that Lake did reluctantly allow Holbrooke to implement the new strategy -- a job Holbrooke performed with great skill.
Related
One vital benefit which is struggling to emerge from the prolonged debate about President Reagan's military budget proposals is a recognition that this country and its NATO allies have until now, incredibly, lacked a meaningful and coherent strategy of defense against the Soviet Union. Appreciation of this fact may not yet fully have penetrated the Pentagon or been recognized by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. But it does appear to have reached the White House. The first indication of this came in a little noticed but potentially vastly important statement made by William P. Clark, the President's National Security Adviser, at Georgetown University last May 20. Our new strategy, he declared, would include "diplomatic, political, economic and informational components built on a foundation of military strength." In a limited application of this concept, he noted that "We must force our principal adversary, the Soviet Union, to bear the brunt of its economic shortcomings."
Richard Holbrooke's gripping memoir shows how he improvised a makeshift peace in what was left of Bosnia despite a timorous Pentagon, a reluctant president, waweirding allies, and brutal ethnic cleansers. But the Dayton Accord came too late.
In many areas, transatlantic cooperation is stronger than ever before. Yet the common perception is of an increasingly fraught relationship, as evidenced by the well-known disputes over beef, bananas, and burden sharing. Assumptions are diverging over security risks and cultural values. Each side criticizes the other's unwieldy policymaking process without admitting its own shortcomings, while leaders pander to domestic interests and prejudices without educating voters on international issues. Europe nonetheless remains indispensable to a multilateral U.S. foreign policy. The Bush administration must acknowledge the European Union as a true partner, in political and military matters as well as in economics. America cannot expect its allies to share the burdens of global leadership without allowing them their say in the issues at stake.
