Focus on core mission by removing US troops from Balkans
Bush’s advisors confirmed that a Bush administration would work to redeploy the 11,400 ground troops - about one-fifth of the 65,000 NATO peacekeeping troops in the region - out of the Balkans. They added, however, that no such redeployment would take
place without consultation with America’s NATO allies. The remarks fleshed out Bush’s repeated statements that American troops should not be used in peacekeeping missions and should instead concentrate their efforts on preparing to fight wars in places
like the Persian Gulf and the Korean peninsula.
“The role of the US military is not to be all things to all people. Bush does not support an open-ended commitment to keep our troops as peacekeepers in the Balkans,” said a spokesman. An advisor added,
“Gore seems to have a vision of an indefinite US military deployment in the Balkans. He proved today that if he is elected, America’s military will continue to be overdeployed, harming morale & re-enlistment rates, weakening our military’s core mission.”
Source: Steven Holmes, NY Times
Oct 22, 2000
Revise NATO; US out of Balkans; Europeans in
Bush plans to tell NATO that the United States should no longer participate in peacekeeping in the Balkans, signaling a major new division of labor in the Western alliance.
Peacekeeping in Bosnia and Kosovo would become a European responsibility. The US would focus on deterring and fighting wars in the Persian Gulf, Asia and other distant trouble spots.
Bush’s plan would represent the most important revision of NATO tasks since the cold war. Bush says he would spend $45 billion of the surplus on the military over 10 years.
Bush has contended that the military has been run ragged by peacekeeping and humanitarian work, missions that are taking a toll on morale and readiness.
Source: Michael R. Gordon, NY Times
Oct 21, 2000
NATO: Europeans provide troops; US provides support only
Bush plans to tell NATO that the US should no longer participate in peacekeeping in the Balkans, signaling a major new division of labor in NATO. Under this arrangement, peacekeeping in Bosnia and Kosovo would become a European responsibility, as could
peacekeeping in other conflicts. The US would focus on deterring and fighting wars in the Persian Gulf, Asia and other distant trouble spots. Bush’s plan would represent the most important revision of NATO tasks since the cold war. His aides say the
change is long overdue and would let the American military concentrate its training and financing on traditional combat missions.
The US would continue to provide intelligence, help with communications, transport and do other logistical work after
withdrawing its peacekeeping troops. “We are not withdrawing from Europe,” an adviser said. “But when it comes to nation-building or civilian administration or indefinite peacekeeping, we do need for the Europeans to step up to their responsibilities.”
Source: Michael Gordon, NY Times
Oct 21, 2000
Bush wants Europeans in Balkans; they’re already there
We don’t need to persuade Europe “to put troops on the ground” in Kosovo, as Bush suggested, because almost 85% of the soldiers there now are from Europe. When bombing broke out in Bosnia, Bush did not leap to support it,
as he claimed, but said at the time he was “praying,” before eventually lending an equivocal voice.
Source: Time, p. 62, “Double Standard” at Wake Forest debate
Oct 19, 2000
Harming NATO is a strategic interest & warrants intervention
GORE [to Bush]: [Regarding] when it’s appropriate for the US to use force around the world, at times the standards that you’ve laid down have given me the impression that if it’s something like a genocide or ethnic cleansing, that that alone wouldn’t
be the kind of situation that would cause you to think that the US ought to get involved with troops. There have to be other factors involved for me to want to be involved. But by itself, that, to me, can bring into play a fundamental American strategic
interest because I think it’s based on our values.
BUSH: If I think it’s in our nation’s strategic interests, I’ll commit troops. I thought it was in our strategic interests to keep Milosevic in check because of our relations in NATO, and
that’s why I took the position I took. I think it’s important for NATO to be strong and confident. I felt like an unchecked Milosevic would harm NATO. So it depends on the situation, Mr. Vice President.
Source: (X-ref Gore) Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University
Oct 11, 2000
After U.S. victory, Europeans should keep peace in Serbia
Q: Is Milosevic’s defeat a triumph for U.S. military intervention?
BUSH: I think it’s a triumph. I thought the president made the right decision in joining NATO in bombing Serbia. I supported him when they did so. I think it worked. I’m pleased
I made the decision I made, and I’m pleased the president made the decision he made, because freedom took hold in that part of the world. There’s a lot of work left to be done, however. I don’t think he would have fallen had we not used force.
I know there’s some in my party that disagreed with that sentiment. The administration deserves credit for having made it work. I hope our European friends become the peacekeepers in Bosnia and in the Balkans.
I hope that they put the troops on the ground so that we can withdraw our troops and focus our military on fighting and winning war.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University
Oct 11, 2000
Replace US troops with European troops in Balkans
One of the problems we have in the military is we’re in a lot of places around the world and I mentioned one and that’s the Balkans. I’d very much like to get our troops out of there. I recognize we can’t do it now, nor do I advocate an immediate
withdrawal. That would be an abrogation of our agreement with NATO. No one is suggesting that, but I think it ought to be one of our priorities to work with our European friends to convince them to put troops on the ground.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University
Oct 11, 2000
Let Russians convince Milosevic to step down
BUSH: The Russians [should] convince Milosevic it’s in his best interest and his country’s best interest to leave office. The Russians have got a lot of sway in that part of the world, and we’d like to see them use that sway to encourage democracy to
take hold.
GORE: Under some circumstances, that might be a good idea. But I’m not sure that it’s right for us to invite the president of Russia to mediate this dispute there, because we might not like the result that comes out of that. They currently
favor going forward with a runoff election. I think that’s the wrong thing. I think the governor’s instinct is not necessarily bad, because we have worked with the Russians in a constructive way, in Kosovo, for example, to end the conflict there. But I
think we need to be very careful in the present situation before we invite the Russians to play the lead role in mediating.
BUSH: Well, obviously we wouldn’t use the Russians if they didn’t agree with our answer.
GORE: Well, they don’t.
Source: (X-ref Gore) Presidential debate, Boston MA
Oct 3, 2000
Pull US troops out of Balkans; and pay them more
“The current administration inherited a military ready for the dangers and challenges that faced our nation. The next president will inherit a military in decline. A volunteer military has only two paths. It can lower its standards to fill its ranks, or
it can inspire the best & brightest to join & stay.” Bush promised to pull US troops out of peacekeeping missions in the Balkans and offer an additional $1 billion in raises for serving personnel, plus increased re-enlistment bonuses for key personnel.
Source: Staff & Wire Reports, CNN.com
Aug 21, 2000
No deadline for removing troops from Kosovo
The two candidates generally share the philosophy of internationalism that was the hallmark of President Bush and that has animated Presindent Clinton’s policy. Governor Bush supported the Clinton administration’s use of force in Kosovo
last year. And last week, when some congressional Republicans wanted to establish a deadline for removing US troops from Kosovo, Bush questioned the move, saying it would tie his hands if he became president.
Source: Boston Globe, p. A41
May 25, 2000
Supported intervention & ground troops; but without UN
Would work to reestablish weapons inspections in Iraq
Supported U.S. intervention in Kosovo because it was in our strategic interests
Said option of ground troops should not have been taken off the table in Kosovo intervention
Would never place U.S. troops under U.N. command
Supports a U.N. role in weapons inspections, peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts
Be suspicious of agreement until Serbs gone & Kosovars home
America should be suspicious of any agreement with an indicted war criminal who has not kept his word in the past. The first sign of whether Milosevic will live up to his agreement will come when he begins to withdraw his forces from Kosovo. The
withdrawal of all Serb forces must be prompt and complete. Second, the Kosovo refugees must be able to return home safely. Returning 850,000 refugees to their homes will be a monumental task. Our hopes must be matched by tough and continued vigilance.
Source: GeorgeWBush.com/News/ “Kosovo Accord”
Jun 4, 1999
Timetable for US peacekeepers to hand over to Europeans
Once they are returned to their homes, the Kosovars must be protected by an international peacekeeping force with NATO at its core. Any US forces involved must be under US or NATO command. The President should also lay out a timetable for how long
American troops will be involved and when they will be removed. If a residual force is needed, it is important that over time US troops are withdrawn and our European allies assume most of the responsibility.
Source: GeorgeWBush.com/News/ “Kosovo Accord”
Jun 4, 1999
Click here for definitions & background information on Kosovo.
