Things are clear enough already, thanks. I prefer to view US intervention in the former Yugoslavia as an overreaction on the part of a US government that feared a huge public backlash over the inaction following yet another genocide (a la Bosnia and Rwanda). I consider the Bosnian civil war maybe my best subject and throughout my research I see no reason to defend the Serbs or any of their actions (when I say "Serbs" I mean groups claiming to represent Serbian interests, the Bosnian forces were multi ethnic as opposed to the homogeneous Republika Srpska), it's easy to see how the textbook genocide in Rwanda and the Serbian orchestrated genocide in Bosnia may have made the US government a little trigger happy when it came to preventing a PR disaster. This guy mention Rwanda, why didn't they go into Rwanda? That's a great question, and my answer comes from veteran African journalist Journalist Aidan Hartley (my personal hero), he theorised that the "humanitarian intervention" aka disaster, in Somalia soured the US to foreign intervention based on perceived good intentions, this is why there was no intervention in Rwanda and Rwanda/Bosnia is what created the gungho attitude towards Kosovo (which is a whole other kettle of Albanian criminal fish). I tend to try and think of the US government as made of people, and despite opposing many of my own personal beliefs, they aren't cartoon villains with "Evil" as an ideology.