you name it. There are many different forces of instabilit)’ inrnthe southern region.” Naturally, he believes Washington mustrnintervene, explaining that “I can think of no foreign theaterrnmore critical for the L’nited States. We ha’e to stav engaged,rnwith a force and the polihcal will to use it.” hideed, hernadvocates “engagement across the line,” since that strategy isrnwhat won the Cold War, Of course, acknowledges Lopez, “instabilitvrnis a difficult enem’ to deal with.”rnIS there no coimtty over whichrnAmerica is unwilHng to go tornwar? The answer, unfortunately,rnappears to be no.rnWell, es, as Washington is discovering in Bosnia. The UnitedrnStates is already deeply enmeshed in the Balkans, a regionrnwith no serious link to American securit)’. Despite the ongoingrnWestern occupation, there is little support among any of thernthree hate-filled ethnic groups for preserving the artificialrnBosnian state, a Utopian goal of no practical value to America orrneen Europe. Nevertheless, Washington is novv’ using its militaryrnto support one nationalist politician over another in SerbianrnBosnia. It turns out that the kind of democracy Washingtonrnis intent on bringing to the Balkans—by seizing televisionrnand radio stations when it disapproves of their broadcasts andrntransferring control of police stations to factions it views as morernpliant—is more representative of Boss Tweed than GeorgernWashington. But good policy does not seem to be the goal.rnAs the Weekly Standard explains: “We need to make it clear,rnnot just to Bosnians but to the world, that it’s much safer to bernour friend than our encm-.” Perhaps we should just beginrnbombing.rnThese sort of arguments about U.S. leadership, routinelyrnmade by advocates of a Pax Americana, are just plain silly.rnLeadership requires acting even when those on whose behalfrnone claims to be actiirg do not think the issue is importantrnenough to act? That is the conduct of a sucker, not a leader.rnAnd what foes and vhat commitments are at stake? If Washingtonrndoes not try to rebuild a Muslim-dominated Bosnia,rnthen what? Would China attack Taiwan, North Korea attackrnSouth Korea, Russia invade Germany? It would have been anrnexercise in real leadership to ignore the pAiropeans* attempt atrnblackmail —threatening to remove their forces if PresidentrnClinton had tried to fulfill his original commitment to bringrnAmerican troops home bv Jul). He should have kept hisrnpromise, telling the Europeans to do as they wish.rnBut meddling in Bosnia is not enough. Violent unrest inrnKosovo, a Yugoslav province largely populated by ethnic Albarrians,rnhas generated calls for intervention. The United Statesrnis “not going to stand by and watch” Yugoslavia crush politicalrnfreedom in Kosovo, thundered Secretary’ of State Albright. Albrightrnpushed for economic sanctions and an arms embargo.rnShe is a moderate, however. The Balkan Institute proposesrn”threatening U.S. militarv inter’ention to halt provocative violencernby Belgrade.” Janusz Bugajski of the Center for Strategicrnand International Studies advocates declaring the province tornbe a NATO protectorate and launching air strikes against Yugoslavrnnrilitarv’ targets.rnCertainly, one can argue that Yugoslavia should provide politicalrnrights to Albanians in Kosovo. But it is a dictatorship thatrndoes not give full political rights to Serbs. In anv event, the issuernis not humanitarian. Washington cares not one whit aboutrnethnic self-determination when it come to Serbs dominated byrnCroats and Muslims, or Kurds brutalized bv Turks.rnUnfortunately, Bosnia is only the start, at least if currentrnWashington policymakers hae their way. Adni. Lopezrnsays, “If you take a macro-look at our theater, it’s literally filledrnv ith instability and pockets of unrest.” Examples include Albania,rnAlgeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Greece andrnTurke), Libya, the Middle East, Syria, and Zaire. “With thernend of the Cold War, the new enemy is instability, and it isrnmanifested in this region more than in any other place in thernworld,” Lopez argues. “Our business and our mission is tornmaintain .stability.”rnThis is apparently why the United States has been aiding thernmilitaries of Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan, areas neverrnbefore thought to be of great strategic interest. Washingtonrnhas been providing military aid to Uzbekistan; it has also establishedrnthe United States-Uzbekistan Joint Commission to studyrnmilitar and political cooperation.rnMoreover, in 1996 the United States conducted militar)’ exercisesrnin the region. Explained Marine Gen. Jack Sheehan,rncommander of the U.S. Atlantic Command, if the U.N. everrnauthorizes a “peace support operation”—whatever that is—inrnthe Central Asian nations, “then the United States is ready tornstand beside them and participate.” To this cheery thought, hernadded: “There is no nation on the face of the earth that we cannotrnget to.” He did not explain, however, why the United Statesrnwould want to get to such distant, impoverished nations, whichrnborder on Afghanistan, China, and Russia.rnAFSOUTH is also advocating a “Mediterranean Initiative”rnthat proirrotes militar}’ contacts with Eg’pt, Jordan, Mauritania,rnMorocco, and Tunisia. But Adm. Lopez wants more, muchrnmore — to expand the so-called Partnership for Peace, the precursorrnto NATO expansion into Central Europe, to such nations.rnAnd the Sixth Fleet has been conducting training exercisesrnthroughout West Africa. “I believe there’s a need to makernnew friends,” savs Lopez, “so that NATO and the United Statesrnare viewed in a positive, rather than threatening, way.” In otherrnwords, NATO will become a big Peace Corps, only with nuclearrnweapons.rnIs there no countr}’ over which America is unwilling to go tornwar? The answer, unfortunately, appears to be no. NATO officialsrnsuggest that “out-of-area” actions may become the alliance’srnprimary focus in the future. For what conceivable purpose?rnCapt. Ken Golden, commander of an AmphibiousrnReadiness Group attached to the Sixth Fleet, says “Wliile a lotrnof Americans back home seem to think we don’t have enemiesrnanymore, I can tell you there’s a lot of hatred out there. Thernworld as we see it out here is a very unsettling and unstablernplace.” Yes, but our enemies—such as Cuba and North Korearn—are simply pathetic. And most of the hatred would not berndirected at the United States if Washington did not meddle inrn16/CHRONICLESrnrnrn