Porter Goss: “Mr. Chairman, I believe it is not only prudent but part of a vital duty for this Congress to continue to discuss…”

“Mr. Chairman, I believe it is not only prudent but part of a vital duty for this Congress to continue to discuss national security and policy questions relating to our ongoing operations in Kosovo. As part of this debate, I believe we must take a longer view of our foreign policy goals using lessons learned in this current crisis. In a nutshell, what does our intervention in Kosovo imply for our foreseeable future as the world's dominant power? And we are. Consider that NATO attacked a sovereign country that offered no military threat to the members of the alliance. Consider that NATO justified its attack on the basis of morality rather than self-defense, and NATO limited the accuracy and effectiveness of its attack to those measures that presented the least risk to NATO participants, even though this format predictably caused innocent civilians' deaths. Where do these actions as a precedent take us? Who else has the 'right' to mount such an attack? China? Russia? The Organization of African Unity? Some other power? Some rogue Nation? Where else should NATO attack? The principles of morality have no geographic boundaries. We know that. For every ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, there will be several more, in Africa, Indonesia, any other headline you want to pick in the paper. How can NATO not intervene in the next Liberia, Rwanda or East Timor?”