d indefinitely, but also scaled down. America took the initiative in support of a somewhat more forceful and comprehensive international efforts to remold the Bosnian state and its institutions in a multi-ethnic mold, but many problems remain. The United States has accepted responsibility for undertakings in Bosnia of indefinite duration and uncertain prospects for success.
War in Bosnia and U.S. International Strategy After the End of
The international strategy of any nation contains three elements: its foreign policy (ends or goals) and the means used to achieve those goals (foreign policy means, including the use of diplomacy, the threat of or use of military power, and economic tools, such as foreign aid, trade, etc.), as permitted or constrained by foreign policy resources (including the sinews of national economic and military capacity and strength, and intangible sources of national power, such as international prestige and reputation, national will and public support). International strategy consists of three basic elements or components: global strategy, regional strategy and strategy toward a particular nation or state. The primary thesis of this paper is that the United States failed for at least four years to develop and, therefore, implement through appropriate use of diplomacy and military force an effective international strategy for dealing with the Bosnian war because it suffered from confusion as to its basic objectives there and a lack of conviction that its vital interests were involved. Even today, four years after the signing of the Dayton Accords, legitimate questions can be raised as to whether American policy makers, the Congress or the American public sufficiently appreciate the long-term nature of the commitments they have undertaken in Bosnia and whether they are prepared to stay the course long enough to complete them.
During the Cold War, a broad consensus existed in the United States that its n...