Yep if you want to put it that way. Bosnia is part of a bigger problem of nation building by pen.
If you understand the history of the region, the animosity between the people involved and the fact that there is still an occupation to keep the peace, then yep it can be the same.
The problem is the same, we were allies with the Serbs, we crapped on them when they were killing Muslims and now a lot of them just don't like us. Did we, the US, have to get involved?
NOPE it was a European problem that needed a European solution and all of Europe should have been dealing with it, not selective countries who felt they had to be the police of the world. Many felt our presences let them get away from actually doing anything, escaping their responsibility of the people of that region. A lot of the killing was along religious lines, Orthodox killing Muslim, Catholic killing Orthodox, etc ...
If you want to watch a good movie about the mess in Bosnia and how the UN peace keeping attempts made it worse, watch
No Mans Land.
Libya should have an Arab response, not one from anyone else but see Italy and France, Greece and Turkey are the ones who are suffering from the issues of Refugees - not the United States or Germany or even England. BUT it is France and England who see it as a humanity thing that covers up some of the underlying issues (their rather not so ethical involvement) why they need to keep a lid on things while a lot of people like me feel it is a strict civil war and one that some of the players are not really clear on where they stand so we should stay out of it.
When I was at lunch, I listened to a few Lebanese make an interesting comment; with England and France involved, it looks to many of the Arab world that they are trying to recolonize Libya.
The thing that we should worry about is the use of our troops to "keep the peace". We don't need to be there and there really may not be any way without physical presence on the ground to stop any civil unrest, be it caused by rebels or by government forces.
