Your Daily Newt: A Bay of Pigs for Bosnia

This is a painting of Newt Gingrich.Robin Nelson/ZumaPress

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


As a service to our readers, every day we are delivering a classic moment from the political life of Newt Gingrich—until he either clinches the nomination or bows out.

Newt Gingrich put his foot squarely in his mouth last March when he condemned the enactment of a no-fly-zone in Libya just two weeks after calling for a no-fly-zone in Libya. It was an obvious reversal—but not without precedent.

In November 1994, Gingrich balked at a $5 billion aid package for Bosnia, calling the conflict in Yugoslavia “a European problem” that should be resolved by America’s European allies. Just one month later, though, he’d had a change of heart. That December, Gingrich called for the complete removal of European peacekeepers, to be followed by a stepped-up American air presence leading up to a Bay of Pigs-style exile invasion (again with American air support). The idea, as reported by the New York Times’ Elaine Sciolino, was as follows:

After the peacekeepers withdrew, “You would say to the Serbs, ‘We insist on a general cease-fire and we are telling you right now we reserve the right to hit every target in every part of the country simultaneously if you don’t stand down,'” he said. “We’re not going to play games. We’re going to take out your command and control. We’re going to take out all of your inventory. We’re going to take anything that moves on your roads. We’re going to take down every bridge in your part of the country. We’re going to break you, and we’re going to do it in three days.”

Meanwhile, the United States would mount a covert operation to airlift part of the Bosnian Government Army to a friendly country such as Egypt, Israel or Morocco for training and arming by the Americans.

And Mr. Gingrich would do that even though, as he told the town meeting, “I don’t think the Bosnians are any angels either.”

“If they were winning, they’d be about as brutal as the Serbs.”

Gingrich’s reasoning was simple. Although he now considers the UN to be a “corrupt, inept, bureaucratic machine” that infringes on American sovereignty, Gingrich felt that the Serbs had disrepected the international body and needed to be taught a lesson. It was a dramatic reversal—one that made the conservative foreign policy establishment more than a little uneasy.

But at least Gingrich had an exit strategy. As he told Sciolino, “If they can’t win, we should surrender.”

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest