embargo was similar to that imposed upon Iraq during and after the Gulf War. President Bush, however, refused to use military force in the region and to some degree, I agree with his reasoning. There are three main reasons that kept a military reaction at bay. The first is that no matter how small the initial action, a continued, expanded operation was expected. Much like Viet Nam, the Bosnian conflict offered obstacles to a quick, speedy, and painless process. The second reason is that there were no clear objectives in the region and no commitment to leaving. The problems that caused the conflict would not have gone away by simply rolling a tank down Main Street of Sarajevo. Finally, the third reason -- politics. Had Bush committed troops to the war in Bosnia, a wave of potentially unpopular criticism may have taken the sails out of his campaign. How would Bush have explained to his electorate that he was responsible for sending young American boys to their death? He couldnt take the chance.So, the war in Bosnia continued. The United States and other allies toyed with the idea of airlifting food and medical supplies to the regions cut off from direct aid coming in to Sarajevo but the military, without clear objectives and a plan of attack, failed to support those missions as well. Bush lost the election in 1992 and left office. Clinton entered the situation late and because of it, was left with Bushs legacy of inaction. The Serbs had taken control of over seventy percent of Bosnia (Zimmerman, 11) and had consolidated their control of the region before Clinton could find his way to the bathroom in the White House. Eventually, the Clinton Administration did raise a stronger voice but this was short lived because of the Europeans unwillingness to cooperate in a plan to lift the arms embargo and to hit Serb strongholds with air strikes. After this plan failed to win popular support in Europe, the United States continued on...
