Sir, - As one who was and is opposed to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, please allow me to answer Bert Wright and Colm Breathnach (June 24th). Firstly, I do agree that the brutality of the Serb regime had to be resisted. However, before giving the alternative, let me draw an analogy.
If I encounter a man violently accosting a woman on the other side of the road, is it acceptable for me, in order to protect the woman, to start throwing stones at the couple, possibly injuring the woman? This is the risk-free option and may or may not achieve the desired result. Or should I intervene directly even at the risk to my own personal safety? The "throwing stones" option was the one favoured by NATO.
Implicit in the NATO bombing campaign was the assumption that Kosovar Albanian lives were of less value than those of NATO citizens. That this is so is shown by the fact that NATO personnel were never put at risk while many Kosovar Albanians were killed by NATO bombs. I am no military strategist, but I believe that if you are going to enter a conflict, then you must enter the conflict directly by deploying personnel on the ground, and then only after all other options are exhausted. I believe that this option, while putting one's own citizens at risk, would have lead to a shorter conflict and could possibly have prevented the displacement of so many Kosovar Albanians.
The other effect of NATO propaganda has been to tarnish all Serbs as murdering fascists. Where were the news reports on the Serbian refugees over the duration of the Balkan conflict? I experienced something akin to this when I lived in London. A neighbour's wife called me a "bomb planter" simply because I was Irish.
The end does not justify the NATO means. - Yours, etc., John Lacken,
Tawnylea, Drumkeeran, Co Leitrim.