It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
NYTimes October 20, 2000
If elected president, George W. 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, according to Mr. Bush's senior national security aide.
Under this arrangement, peacekeeping in Bosnia and Kosovo would become a European responsibility, as could peacekeeping in other conflicts. The United States, in contrast, would focus on deterring and fighting wars in the Persian Gulf, Asia and other distant trouble spots.
Mr. 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 governor is talking about a new division of labor," Condoleezza Rice, the security adviser, said in an interview. "The United States is the only power that can handle a showdown in the gulf, mount the kind of force that is needed to protect Saudi Arabia and deter a crisis in the Taiwan Straits. And extended peacekeeping detracts from our readiness for these kinds of global missions."
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 If a residual force is needed, it is important that over time US troops are withdrawn and our European allies assume most of the responsibility.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
Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Why doesn't someone scream for an exit stratefy in Germany? We're still there! Korea? How about Bosnia?
GORE: --snip-- Now, readiness. The trends before I got my current job were on the decline, the number of divisions were reduced. I argued that we should reverse that trend and take it back up. And I'm happy to tell you that we have. Now, in my budget for the next ten years I propose $100 billion for this purpose. The governor proposes $45 billion. I propose more than twice as much because I think it's needed.
MODERATOR: Governor Bush, two minutes.
BUSH: If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like he is. Your question was deployment. It must be in the national interests, must be in our vital interests whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we're going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined.
I'm concerned that we're overdeployed around the world. See, I think the mission has become somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war, and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often.
Originally posted by AceOfBase
During a debate with Gore in October 2000, Gore pledged to put $100 billion into the military over ten years