The Double-Edged Sword of Foreign Conflict Intervention

Contributed

This photo was taken in 2000 when Edin Selimovic and his family returned to Bosnia after the war, showing the ruins left behind in the wake of a genocide. Americans are fatigued by forever wars and with Trump and MAGA aiming to regain power, the relationship between the U.S. and NATO could split with disastrous global consequences.

America very nearly killed Edin Selimovic. Oddly, the 52-year-old Erieite and genocide survivor is thankful—because the U.S. also saved his life. Selimovic admitted to me, "After I survived, I chose to use the pain as a power and fuel to get to my destiny." That destiny became the American Dream: a college degree, a middle-class life, and two high-achieving daughters. Ironically, Selimovic always had faith in America. He told me that in 1990s Bosnia, "The U.S. was always our hope… When the U.S. intervened, Bosnia was saved."

In the early 1990s, Selimovic, along with 25,000 other Bosnians, clung to life in the so-called "safe haven" of Srebrenica, Bosnia. For years, America watched passively as Serbs slaughtered Bosnians. Hans Binnendjik, who then served on the State Department Policy Planning Staff, recalled, "It was clear that there was [American] resistance to engagement. It [Bosnia] did not fall under [NATO] Article V." In other words, America had no obligation to act since Bosnia did not belong to NATO. So, the world wrung its hands as the Serbs perpetrated a genocide.

From 1992 to 1995, United Nations peacekeepers kept the Serbs from entering Srebrenica. But the Serbs also blocked food and aid from entering, which meant in Selimovic's words, "We had no food. No electricity. Kids and the elderly died." In July 1995, Serbs finally took Srebrenica and murdered more than 8,000 Bosnians. Selimovic, who was 24 years old, was one of 15,000 who fled into the mountains. He ran for 11 days. Exhausted by hunger and terrorized by Serb ambushes, many left the woods to surrender. The Serbs murdered them and pitched their bodies into mass graves. "I stayed in the woods," Selimovic told me, "I found my survivor mode." Eventually, he was captured. But those 11 days in the mountains saved Selimovic's life.

After Srebrenica, America and NATO entered the war. Binnendjik, who is now a Distinguished Fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy & Security, told me, "It [Srebrenica] was a turning point. After that, the U.S. and NATO were decisive." In 1995, that meant NATO jets bombing Serb positions. Watching the tide of the war and genocide turn from a concentration camp was Selimovic.

On Sept. 29, 1995, Selimovic was swapped in a prisoner exchange. Every year, he celebrates what he calls "my second birthday." He credits the U.S. for giving him that: "I believe if the U.S. and NATO had not been involved, there would have been many more Srebrenicas." Binnendjik concurs. He, along with a generation of Americans, re-learned a basic lesson:"To get action and results, it takes NATO and American leadership." Bosnia helped re-cement the post-1945 bipartisan consensus supporting NATO and America's global leadership. But the hubris of this success sowed the seeds of its demise.

In 2024, the American-led international order that saved Edin Selimovic is at a historic crossroads. For 75-years, a bipartisan consensus supporting NATO and collective security was the linchpin of U.S. security. During those years and on those key issues, American politics truly stopped at the water's edge. That is why JD Vance's 2022 statement, "I don't really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other," is significant. MAGA, and its unilateral foreign policy vision, is now clearly the GOP mainstream. This is why 36 percent of Americans say, "The United States is doing too much to help Ukraine."

Dr. Lena Surzhko-Harned has a one-word explanation for the collapse of the consensus: "fatigue." The Penn State-Behrend professor of international relations sympathizes with those with whom she disagrees. She told me that "the forever wars in Afghanistan and Iraq" forced Americans to ask, "What was this all for?"

In asking this basic question, Americans are not wrong. The costs of these forever wars stagger the imagination. The Pentagon spent over $5 trillion to wage 20 years of warfare. But the human expense borne by American soldiers, over 7,000 combat deaths, 53,000 wounded, and 30,000 suicides, are the real receipts. Once you add 900,000 Iraqi and Afghani deaths to the toll, the dead from these wars reach nearly a million. The ultimate insult is that neither conflict buttressed America's national interest or permanently helped Afghanistan or Iraq.

It is true that the Afghanistan War denied Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda a safe haven. After 9/11, pursuing Bin Laden was both justifiable and wholly necessary. But when Bin Laden was finally killed in 2011, the U.S. extended its remit to safeguard Afghanistan's democracy. Unlike Afghanistan, the Iraq War had no justifiable pretext. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a homicidal thug. He killed 30,000 Iraqi Kurds in 1980s mustard gas attacks. His regime also murdered another 200,000 political opponents. But Iraq is the textbook definition of what Barack Obama once called a "dumb war." The conflict cost trillions in dollars, thousands of lives, and spawned geopolitical disorder that harms American interests to this day. Oh, and in the aftermath, Iraq still teeters on the verge of chaos.

This photo, taken in 1994 in Bosnia, shows Edin Selimovic with his father prior to the Serbian assault that decimated Srebrenica, killed thousands, and spurred the United States to become involved in conflict. In 2024, while at a political crossroads, U.S. support of NATO wavers, specifically when it comes to Putin's war in Ukraine. (Contributed photo)

Questioning foreign policy assumptions is healthy. But Surzhko-Harned told me Vladimir Putin "exploits this [American] fatigue." To her, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a direct threat to NATO. If the U.S. fails to stem Russia's invasion, NATO is next. She explained to me, "It is a fight for democracy. To the American ear, this sounds like hyperbole. But this is about sovereignty, order, and democracy." She admitted, "I am hard pressed to think Putin will invade a NATO country." But if Ukraine falls or is forced to make significant territorial concessions, she warns "NATO [will be] brought to a state of not trusting in our allies, then no one is safe."

Hans Binnendjik is blunter. He divulged, "If you want to start a big war, diminish NATO." And Binnendjik thinks Trump will do just that. He warned, "I don't think Trump has a commitment to Article V. There needs to be trust in American leadership. There is tremendous (European) trust in Biden and Harris's leadership. There is no trust in Trump."

The turn against historic American foreign policy commitments is not limited to the MAGA right. Israel's war in Gaza and Lebanon has spurred significant unrest on the American left and with Arab-Americans in particular. In 2020, Reem al-Misky, and her sisters, phoned thousands of voters on behalf of Joe Biden and the Erie Democratic Party. But the Syrian-American and Erie resident calls the Gaza War her "tipping point." Terming the Israeli occupation of the West Bank "apartheid" and "Jim Crow" she asked, "why are we supporting Israel?" In 2024, she is voting for the Green Party and promoting Jill Stein's October campaign swing to Erie.

Al-Misky is not alone. Many Arab Americans, and others on the left, are organizing against America's "special" relationship with Israel. Arab-Americans comprise less than one percent of all Americans. But more than 211,000 live in Michigan, making them a hefty swing vote in a hotly contested state. There is a Grand Canyon-sized set of policy differences separating the Green Party from MAGA. But in challenging long held foreign policy assumptions, they both signal significant churn in Americans' foreign policy attitudes.

Like al-Misky, Selimovic detests Israel's war in Gaza. But when it comes to American global leadership, he said, "NATO needs to be strong and ready to act. It is in our interest. That's how we reach every inch of the world because of NATO." A foreign policy expert by life experience, Selimovic supports these institutions for an understandable reason. NATO enabled him to live and have two daughters, Eldena and Emina. Beaming with pride, Selimovic boasts about his eldest, Eldena, who works in Erie as a physician's assistant. Emina, meanwhile, is a star Division I basketball player. Selimovic bragged about Emina's work ethic, "she never accepted being average. She once called her coach on Christmas Day to open the gym [for practice]."

The Selimovices have a happy ending to their tragedy. But Professor Surzhko-Harned worries about the future. She warned: "We can't take democracy for granted. We can't take European security for granted. This is a pivotal moment where unless some leadership is shown to protect the values we hold dear as Americans to live free and happy lives, we are very much in danger of repeating the mistakes [of the past]."

Whoever wins the 2024 election will inherit an America in transition — and a world of unrest.

Jeff Bloodworth is a professor of American political history at Gannon University. You can follow him on Twitter/X @jhueybloodworth or reach him at bloodwor003@gannon.edu