The two basic discourses, the Balkan discourse and the Genocide discourse, articulate radically different constructions of spatial, temporal, and ethical identity and they create very different scopes for Western policy. The Balkan discourse constructs the Western choice of policy as linked to whether there are ‘Western strategic interests’ that warrant an intervention, whereas the Genocide discourse articulates a demand for a policy that stops or rectifies the Bosnian Serbian genocidal actions against the Bosnians or Bosnian Muslims. Yet, as the concrete policy debates unfolded, this picture of ideal-type discourses and their associated policies of intervention was often complicated by discourses which created more complex constructions of the identities of ‘the Balkans,’ ‘Bosnia,’ and ‘the West’ and which raised and debated specific concerns related to ‘military feasibility.’ Variations of the Balkan discourse might as a consequence lead to extensive interventions in the conflict, while the Genocide discourse is paradoxically not necessarily followed by calls for Western ground troop military intervention.