Why did the U.S. and NATO feel it was necessary to intervene?
The Balkans has been a historical ignition point in Europe for the last century at least. The truth is, the US wasn't really hot on the idea to begin with, but being part of NATO they really didn't have a choice. Kuwait was a US ally that requested assistance after being invaded by Iraq. Both previous cases the US had legal obligations to assist and both were of strategic significance to US interests. Neither Rhawanda nor Sierre Leone have any compelling reasons justified by treaty, or strategic importance. If all you see is black and white, you suffer from a lack of vision.
How would NATO react if one of the members had a civil war?
A civil war is a domestic problem. Getting embroiled in one might affect your ability to provide personnel for NATO - as required and also as needed for U.N. Security Council.In other words you might not be able to feed and cloth your soldiers if the civil strife drags on and you don’t have an independent economy.What I am saying here is, your civil war is your own problem to face up to, it has nothing to do with NATO.But if you conduct your civil war in a genocidal manner or along the lines of what could be classified as ethnic cleansing, the same NATO members will gang on you and take you apart.The Hague’s standard count for genocidal act (after World War II) is 5000 civilians.Also, if you instigate a war as an aggressor, then you are in your own if you can’t win. NATO is not going to jump in with you.All eyes on Turkey vs Kurds now.You cannot cleanse Kurds from their land inside Syria and replace them with Sunni Turkmen, under a ruse:that they are terrorists, when they (the Kurds) actually fought under the U.N. Security banner and mandate to remove IS from that area.
What is the difference between a Neo-Con (new conservative) and a traditional conservative?
Well,since you obviously want to avoid all the insults the right hurls at everyone(wink wink) we'll just skip over that. Conservatism-Rule of society by an aristocracy. Sorry.That is atrocious. Neo-Con:A heavy slanderer of all non-conservatives who believes we should domesticate the world at any price.Morally and fiscally irresponsible.
What best explains why the United States intervened militarily in former Yugoslavia and not in Rwanda in the 1990s?
I would say that in both cases one blocking factor was France. France was on the side of the Serbs in Yugoslavia and on the side of Hutu in Rwanda. So, France was in both cases on the baddies side and this has not been fully acknowledged by France to that day.What happened in Yugoslavia is that the Croatian and Muslim side were supported by the entirety of their countries. So, more or less, with some exceptions notwithstanding, they retained their honor. The Serb side was different: during the Battle of Vukovar, it was apparent that the average Serb was not willing to die for fulfilling the dreams of the ultranationalists. So, the army was replaced by ultranationalist militants, fascists, football hooligans and the like. This make it much more effective but of course many war crimes were thus committed by such people. So, the Serbs looked bad and with a new president Chirac unwilling to continue old policy, America intervened and the Serbs were attacked.The Rwandan Genocide occurred on a much shorter time frame (100 days) versus 3 years for Bosnia. This was too short for public opinion to unlock bureaucratic slowness. At the same time the humanitarian Opération Turquoise was started by France and saved the life of many Hutu involved in the Genocide but gives an excuse for USA not to intervene. Later on the fire started in very small Rwanda (26000 square km) spread in Congo (100 times bigger). The Second Congo War was horrific with no good sides. No foreign intervention was possible to stop it.
What are NATO members' obligations if civil war breaks out in a member country?
NATO is fundamentally concerned about external threats against its members. That said, should an internal security crisis threaten a country's ability to fulfill its NATO obligations, in some circumstances this could be seen to threaten the collective security of the Alliance as a whole.Article 4 of the Charter enables the Alliance to "consult" among themselves should any member's security be in jeopardy, without limitation as to the specific origin of the threat (i. e., external or internal). Should the country concerned request the Alliance to come to its aid, the Alliance would probably consider the case on its merits and reach a decision collectively and in consultation with the UN. In other words, while this would be an unusual scenario, there appears to be nothing to prevent an intervention upon appeal by the member.This would be of great importance if, for example, a foreign agressor attempted to bring down a NATO member by fomenting an insurrection through a proxy war. Does this ring any bells? Think Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. I believe that it is precisely this fear that has led NATO to deploy military forces to the Baltic states, to preempt a similar "proxy invasion" by Russia against any or all of them.