http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic...00Dec3¬Found=true

In toppling government leaders of other countries, before Saddam Hussein, there was Slobodan Milosevic, former and now deceased President of Serbia & Yugoslavia.

The United States while a participant with other countries, certainly had no small role in ousting Milosevic from his position.

Yet I have to ask. What was the U.S. interest in ousting Milosevic??? What was at stake here??? What danger did Milosevic pose to the United States??? Why was it even necessary for the United States to participate at all??? And if I remember correctly wasn't the United Nations opposed to this action???

Interesting point, LR;

'Behind the seeming spontaneity of the street uprising that forced Milosevic to respect the results of a hotly contested presidential election on Sept. 24 was a carefully researched strategy put together by Serbian democracy activists with the active assistance of Western advisers and pollsters.

In the long run, many people here say, Milosevic's overthrow was inevitable, if only because of the economic and military disasters that befell Serbia during his 13 years in power, first as head of Serbia, Yugoslavia's dominant republic, and then as head of Yugoslavia itself. But there was nothing inevitable about the timing or the manner of his departure.

"Without American support, it would have been much more difficult," said Slobodan Homen, a student leader who traveled to Budapest and other European capitals dozens of times to meet with U.S. officials and private democracy consultants. "There would have been a revolution anyway, but the assistance helped us avoid bloodshed."'

(What a contrast with the situation in Iraq, where military aggression, the consequences of which had not been thought through, put together with input from self-serving exiles, has caused horrendous bloodshed and instability.)

US interest lay in having a stable and democratic Europe. I guess, as the article suggests, having a more representative and democratic government in Serbia was seen as part of winning the Cold War in general.

The UN was opposed to Milosevic's crimes, wasn't it? The UN did at one point authorise unspecified additional measures against Serbia. I don't think it explcitly authorised bombing, however. The bombing didn't work, it seems, but the funding of protests did. Some opposed US military tactics (from a playbook they and the IDF still seem to be using):

'An example given in the program was the bombing of Serbia, to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. The European NATO countries wanted to concentrate on the Serbian military in Kosovo; the US wanted to bomb bridges, power stations and so on throughout Serbia - forcing Milosovic to stop (or forcing ordinary Serbs to force Milosovic to stop). In the end they bombed both kinds of target.' answerpool.com