ABSTRACT
Following the fall of Srebrenica the US executive was placed in a difficult position with regard to whether they would act to retake Srebrenica or move to ensure adequate defence of other ‘safe areas’. For example, on 11 July Anthony Lake was asked by a journalist for an assessment on the situation in Bosnia. Lake replied bluntly ‘let me give you a very brief answer: No!’17 When asked to elaborate, Lake said ‘because this is a fluid situation, is one reason. I’m leaving, and as you know is our practice, when we’re in the middle of a situation like that, for a variety of reasons, we prefer not to comment.’18 On the same day also, White House spokesperson Mike McCurry was placed in a difficult position when asked whether the US would intervene to save Srebrenica. McCurry initially attempted to deflect these questions by stating that the European-led RRF was set up to respond to crises such as the Bosnian Serb assault on Srebrenica. When it was pointed out that the US marines were available offshore and the RRF was not yet fully deployed, McCurry refused to be drawn to comment. At this point a frustrated journalist remarked:
Well Michael, what is the point of the president going to Denver and making a public pledge to rescue peacekeepers in danger when the first and most prominent case of that comes up and no one in this administration can say whether or not this is what he was talking about?19
