Deserves more discussion than I can give it here.

It is indeed a good idea to view the war in Iraq and the war in the Balkans together when discussing policy and the positions that politicians and others have taken.

I was ambivalent about the attacks in Kosovo back when they were taking place. I wasn't hard over against them, but wasn't sure about them either. I didn't have full information on the history of the region and the parties involved *, and didn't trust Clinton very far, but the best evidence available at the time did seem to indicate that atrocities were taking place, and the idea that the conflict could easily spread was a plausible one.

A few things should be noted:

- The war in the Balkans was done without U.N. approval

- Whatever the amount of evidence that Saddam posed a threat to the U.S., it's obvious that Yugoslavia posed absolutely none.

- There was not even a history of WMD production or use in Yugoslavia

- There were no terror links at all.

A lot of these are neither here nor there in my opinion--who cares what the U.N. thinks--but some people set great store by these things when talking about Iraq. If these same people supported the war in Yugoslavia, they have some explaining to do. Same for those who think spreading democracy by military means is a great idea in Iraq, but sucked when Clinton was doing it.

A consistent person should have a lot of difficulty supporting the war in Kosovo while opposing the war in Iraq, and admittedly, the reverse is also true. Hypocrisy can become particularly obvious if one discusses humanitarianism as a major reason for either war.

Many people supported neither conflict, including some people on this board. For that matter, Patrick Buchanan, quoted in your link, was strongly opposed to both. Agree or disagree, this position is at least not hypocritical.

Some recent background on the Kosovo mission can be found here. According to this document it's been nine years since the first NATO deployment. There are still NATO troops there. Is this a "quagmire," or is good work being done? Is lack of casualties (military, at least) the only criteria by which a military action is judged? A lot of questions when one holds these two wars up side by side. Not a lot of easy answers.

.

*It's damn hard to find background on this subject on the web that isn't up to its ears in ethnic bias for one side or the other.