Letter: History also says military intervention can work
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.BRIAN CATHCART'S article ('History says keep out . . .', 18 April) reveals that at least the policy being pursued by this Government towards Bosnia falls within a proud tradition. Now, as in the 1930s, Britain is denying a lawful government legitimised by a popular mandate (the referendum of 2 March 1992) the arms to defend itself. In 1936 it was the British-dominated Non-Intervention Committee which effectively stopped the supply of Western military aid to the Spanish government, while Hitler and Mussolini offered Franco massive support.
Unfortunately, your leading article ('Why the Lady is not for following') draws the wrong conclusion from this and other past policy failures listed by Brian Cathcart. Certainly, there have been many failed interventions but also some successful ones: British and American actions in Jordan and Lebanon respectively in 1958 (when the United States representatives at the United Nations argued that 'if the UN cannot deal with indirect aggression, the UN will break up', British confrontation of Indonesian expansionism in the 1960s and more recently the imposition of order in Lebanon by Syria.
Supplying arms to the Bosnian government would be problematic, but concern that a large proportion would fall into Serb hands is overstated: they are heavily armed anyway, their main weakness being a shortage of manpower, not lack of equipment.
Michael Rowe
London N6
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments