Hitch is right about the Clintons, but that's old news. If you haven't gotten them yet, you stopped thinking ten years ago.

But Hitch is wrong on Bosnia. He might call it lying by omission. The big omission is the devastating failure of half a billion (yes) Europeans to take any responsibility for the Balkan massacres. The Balkans are in Europe. The nasty massacres and civil wars during the 90s threatened them, not us. Just as in Darfur today, Europe pretends it is helpless, when it has hundreds of thousands of soldiers who can be used to defeat ethnic cleansing militias. Like an alcoholic, Europe has become so dependent on Uncle Sam that it can no longer figure out how to prevent genocide in its own backyard.

I could not have put it better myself.

Well put. The United States could do it's self a big favor by no longer using two phrases to describe itself. One is The "Last Remaining Super Power". The other is "Leader of the Free World". These terms reflect a mind set trapped in the days of the Cold War. We can no longer see ourselves as the worlds policeman. If for no other reason then the world not wanting us to be so.

When things start going pear shaped in places like Darfur, we should simply refer the matter to Europe, who seems to believe they have a much better sense for all things diplomatic.

We should keep our military strong, but keep our powder dry.

I love Hitch and hate Hillary, but in this regard you're 100% right. And it's a very good point. Hillary was *right* that the United State's primary concern at that point should have been its domestic affairs. It was the responsibility of the Europeans to deal with the matter - and had they asked for our military support, we should have provided it immediately.

You raise an interesting point. But how do we decide where American intervention is deserved? Whose screw-up, for example, was Rwanda? Is Darfur any of our business? Are we to go to war only for oil?

You're right - the United States isn't obligated to clean up every international mess, and other nations are capable of intervening in conflicts on humanitarian grounds. Which raises (but does not beg) the question, when are such interventions merited? In any violent conflict, the losing side will welcome outside intervention, but that means intervening always involves taking sides. Then it becomes partisan, and not humanitarian.

The perception that supposedly "humanitarian" military action is actually self-interested will be reduced when many nations, having a variety of interests, join together to do something about a conflict. If the U.S. had been able to put together a true coalition for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it would be a lot harder to say it was all about the oil and the enrichment of Haliburton.

I don't think Hitch ever defends Europe here. He simply says that a promise was broken by the Clintons, and now Hillary wants to benefit from a false version of history. You're right about Europe's failure, but I don't think that's incompatible with what the article says. It isn't lying by omission, because the role of Europe isn't what this article is about, and isn't relevant to the Clinton topic. He's written about Europe's role elsewhere.