Bosnia and the rest of the Balkans are Europe's hangnail, not its heart. Developments there may be disgusting and tragic, but they have meager potential to disrupt even the European, much less the global, strategic environment.
Putting NATO at risk in order to carry out a dubious mission in Bosnia, for the sake of repaired reputation and not real interests, constitutes a political gamble of the first order.
The speech is remembered today as a seminal pronouncement on behalf of the Atlantic solidarity and clearheaded realism. What is less remembered is that at the time the address brought down on Churchill a torrent of controversy.
History counsels that defeat and victory are the two deadliest moments in the life of alliances.
There is increasing consideration of (and, in some quarters, consternation about) what might be dubbed "the new unilateralism," the practice of the United States going it alone in the world. It merits attention.
The omnibus view of social problems around the globe is a pernicious force threatening to divert organizations like NATO and the UN from their primary purpose.
The Western world's reaction to the destruction of Bosnia has been a triumph of diplomacy. A triumph, that is, of diplomacy over foreign policy.
If the myth of destabilizing European nationalism continues to cast its spell over the decisions of Europe's political architects, then it will prove to be a self-fulfilling fantasy.
An expansion of NATO can only occur under strong U.S. leadership.
The final effacement of British national sovereignty will probably take place in December at the European Economic Community summit in Maastricht, the Netherlands.