The air strikes which NATO began launching Wednesday against Bosnian Serb weapons depots and positions are about four years too late. Back in 1991, when this fetid little conflict started, the United Nations and NATO had an opportunity to execute such a policy and make it effective.

A peace treaty could have been put into force in the region then, and the current siege phase of the war, which has dragged on for three years, could have been avoided. The horrible ethnic cleansing of Bosnia would not have occurred and thousands of lives could have been spared. But instead, the U.N., with its usual overload of goodwill, attempted to ease a peace treaty into the region.

Bosnia was in lousy shape from the beginning. A hodgepodge of ethnic groups, all with divided loyalties, it was almost predestined to be chopped up by the far more powerful nations Serbia and Croatia. In particular the Bosnian Muslims, without a bordering ethnic ally, were on the short end from the start. The U.N.’s focus has been on protecting the Muslim enclaves within Bosnia, and when a reference is made to the Bosnian government it is usually to this group. This situation has been somewhat eased by a tenuous alliance between Croatia and Bosnia; the Croats have no desire to see Serbia more powerful than it already is. However, any treaty agreed to in the past or now would leave Bosnia a much smaller state than it was at the outset. Neither Serbia nor Croatia would be willing to give up their territorial gains in Bosnia.

It is quite obvious now that the Serbs, the primary aggressors in war, never had any intention to honor any peace treaty regardless of how generous the terms toward them.

This conflict is all about the desire for more territory. Serbia is quietly encouraging its ethnic allies in Bosnia in order to create a “Greater Serbia,” one which effectively engulfs Bosnia as the map was drawn following the breakup of Yugoslavia. While every side has committed atrocities during the war and all have a desire for more land, Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs have been the most aggressive in prosecuting the war. It is the Serbs who have besieged Sarajevo since 1992, and it is the Serbs who set up a series of concentration camps uncovered that same year.

With their track record of broken treaties and promises, it is clear that the use of military force is the only way to get the Serbs to agree to and stick with a peace treaty. The U.N. played out its hand long ago; the peacekeeping force that has been in place there for three years has accomplished nothing, and all the treaties they have attempted to enforce have fallen apart. The only remaining option is military force, and NATO should carry out the military option. The Balkans may not be NATO’s back yard, but the region is just over the back fence.

NATO must do two things to make the a military intervention work: it must take a side in the conflict, and it must state a clearly defined military objective. The side has been taken; by bombing the Serb positions, NATO has clearly come down on the Bosnian side. That makes sense, as the thrust of all prior efforts by NATO and the UN have been to preserve what is left of Bosnia.

The more difficult problem facing NATO is to clearly define its goal in the region. Creating peace is a fine thing, but militarily speaking it is not clear enough. A definable objective must be stated, such as a border to be enforced or an objective to be seized. The air strikes are looking effective in bringing the Serbs back to the bargaining table, and this time some concrete results may be achieved. However, any treaty signed or agreement reached must be enforced, and the only way to achieve that is to have troops on the ground – and that is where the real problem is. Forces must be introduced to the region in order keep the peace, since Bosnia, with no real armed forces to speak of, would be an easy mark for Serbia. A large force would have to be placed in Bosnia, or a ready alert force in Europe would have to be available to enforce the treaty and defend Bosnian territory. Otherwise, this whole military adventure will be a pointless enterprise. But NATO is wary of putting it’s troops on the ground; the situation could develop into Europe’s Vietnam very easily, with European troops in an unescapable quagmire.

NATO needs to get involved in the Balkans War now; if not, it will eventually spread. Serbia will not be content to sit in its current position, and the historical hostility between Croatia and Serbia is bound to flare up again. There are other brewing conflicts within the region, and without a clear signal from NATO that this sort of conflict will not be tolerated, NATO’s eastern flank could become a raging problem for decades to come.

Kevin S. Kirby is a senior in journalism mass communication from Louisville, Kentucky. He has a B.A. in political science from the University of Wyoming.