We are certainly a warlike lot. Even though Americans don’t like to admit it, we have a proud history of engaging in acts of “peacekeeping,” “downgrading” and “degrading.” In other words, we like messing with other people’s countries.

And why shouldn’t we? We have so many cool toys, like the B-2 bomber. Have you seen that thing? It looks really bitchin’. It’s way cooler than that “Rattler” thing Cobra had.

I find our justification for military involvement in the Balkans, as well as other recent conflicts, questionable at best. I am not alone.

As soon as airstrikes against Serbian aggressors in Kosovo began, the Chinese and Russian governments immediately denounced NATO actions as a violation of the U.N. charter.

One major reason I have heard for U.S. involvement is to prevent a larger scale conflict — akin to another world war. This reasoning is ludicrous.

At every step of the way, President Clinton and other NATO leaders have been quick to liken the actions of the Serbs to Nazi aggression of World War II.

On Wednesday, Clinton pointed out the similarities between current “ethnic cleansing” and the Holocaust.

“This was genocide in the heart of Europe, not in 1945 but in 1995,” Clinton said.

In all reality there are few similarities between Serbian and Nazi actions.

Conflicts between ethnic groups in the area most recently known as Yugoslavia predate modern history. For a very short time, the different ethnic groups co-existed in relative peace as Yugoslavia under the charismatic leader Tito.

But in recent times, old problems have been re-kindled. Several groups have attempted or achieved liberation from Yugoslavia. The problem is, of course, that there is overlap in terms of the territory claimed by each group.

So, what we have in the Balkans is merely in-fighting between familiar rivals. There is nothing to suggest the type of aggression made by the Nazi’s.

But nothing sets off a red flag in the minds of Americans like anything having to do with the Nazi’s or World War II. NATO leaders are shamelessly trying to garner support for their own aggression.

Let’s step back and think about what is more likely to cause world-wide conflict: civil disputes in a small European country or pissing off the Chinese and the Russians.

I’m not suggesting that our actions are going to lead directly to a conflict with China. But I think it is very dangerous for us to further strain our already deteriorating relationship with that world power.

Not to mention, I think the Chinese have a very good point. By trying to solve someone else’s problems with warfare, we are setting a dangerous precedent. It should not be our job, nor even our inclination, to act as a moral police force for the entire world.

Clinton justified our intervention by saying, “Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative.”

A statement like that can be taken two ways. An American hears that and thinks, “How can we live with ourselves if we don’t do our gosh-darnedest to help those poor people?”

Everyone else in the world thinks, “Once again the violent Americans think they have a solution for everybody.”

Actions by other countries we call “aggression,” are called “peace-keeping” when we’re the one’s kicking ass. It’s a travesty that more Americans aren’t aware of the hypocrisy in our foreign policy. We still seem to be under the delusion that we make the world a better place by intervening in other people’s civil disputes.

How many “thank you” letters have we gotten from the people of South Vietnam this month? Sure, maybe we didn’t help them that much in the long run, but aren’t they at least appreciative of the effort we made?

The truth is, once we pull out of Vietnam or Somalia or Kosovo, the same problems start again. And while we’re there we only cause new problems.

Having Johnny American policing the streets for a few months will not end the disputes between the Albanians and the Serbs. And raining bombs down on Serbian weapons installations and manufacturers will not quell their hatred.

Even if we “degrade” all their military capabilities, Serbs will still fight Albanian liberation. Whether they’re using machine guns and missiles or a pillowcase full of doorknobs, the underlying problem remains the same.

Fighting worldwide social injustice makes good P.R., but bad practice — at least the way the American government does it. Stopping the fighting and solving the problem are not the same thing.

---

Ben Godar is a junior in sociology from Ames.