[PEN-L:6065] Re: Re: (Fwd) NATO STARTED BOMBING TO HELP MILOSEVIC

["William S. Lear" <rael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday, April 27, 1999 at 10:43:40 (-0400) Max Sawicky writes:
>> Firstly, most of us opposed the bombing because it could not, in
>itself, possibly realise the professed ends in whose name it was
>conducted.  People were gonna get killed, maimed, dispossessed and
>dislocated for no reason that had anything to do with NATO's crocodile
>tears and apple pie bleatings.>
>
>Sure you did, but the practical effect of a bombing halt is to
>hand the entire country to Milo, complete with a death warrant
>for Kosova.

Actually, as has been pointed out with no apparent effect on you, the
bombing has solidified Milosevic's support in the country, as anyone
could have predicted.  An end to the bombing and serious negotiations
based upon different premises than yours (that is, accept our offer or
we will bomb you) could very well return the country to normalcy of
some sort or another.  Milosevic, like all ugly rulers, abhors any
whiff of normalcy.

>> Secondly, whatever solutions (and not all of us professed a clue as
>to what might have solved the problems as at 22 March) were available
>at the outset, are now mostly beyond reach (eg.  Serbian
>anti-Milosovic dynamics, the Serbian parliamentary compromise of 23
>April, Rugova's gradualist strategy etc), and the scope of possible
>positive changes has been severely limited by NATO's vicious
>nonsense. >
>
>Right.  But some people are prone to revisiting what should have
>been done three weeks ago, instead of the choices in view right
>now.

This is only correct if the choices available have nothing to do with
what is available now, which is flatly untrue.  The Serbs have made
offers that were credible and we ignored them.  We need to be aware of
this so we can determine when the offers are simply being rejected
again.  History matters, Max.

>All the more reason for the independence of Kosova from Serbia.

And what is independence worth if the KLA, officially described as a
"terrorist" organization, winds up in power, as is likely to happen?

>> In short, very few of us opposed the principle of Kosovar
>'autonomy'/'independence' (although I, for one - & mebbe Rugova for
>two ->
>
>That is not obvious to me.  I recall very little expressed
>support for Kosova from those opposed to Nato.  There has been
>more about Nato's nefarious plans to stoke nationalism and
>splinter the Balkans, as if the region wasn't a patchwork
>already.

This is a nice ploy, Max.  Willingly recall little of those who have
said over and over that independence is very important but should be
achieved in a different way than destroying a country, as you favor.

This whole courageous pose in support of "the people of Kosova",
ignoring the immense destruction caused by the arrogant bombing to the
country, to the people, to the prospects for a just and safe future
for all people there reminds me of dear old Thucydides:

     What  used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was
     now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in  a  party
     member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of
     saying one was a coward; any  idea  of  moderation  was  just  an
     attempt   to   disguise   one's  unmanly  character;  ability  to
     understand a question from all sides meant that one  was  totally
     unfitted  for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real
     man...

>> didn't have a clue how it might come about in any meaningful way -
>in the short term at least).  We merely opposed - and still oppose -
>'strategic bombing.  Because it kills and impoverishes the innocent
>and PRECISELY BECAUSE IT COULD NOT HELP, IN ANY WAY, ADVANCE THE CAUSE
>OF ANY OF YUGOSLAVIA'S PEOPLES. >
>
>A difference that crops up here is your equation or parity
>between the 'cause' of Serbians and Kosovans.  They are not
>equivalent.  The Serbian regime is the aggressor and oppressor.
>Serbian independence is not in question.  Kosova is the aggrieved
>party.  A bombing halt to me signals a halt to any commitment to
>put pressure on Milo, though the bombing itself has not been
>successful in this regard thus far.  Thus the real significance
>of simple anti-bombing politics is anti-Kosovan.

More Manichean handwaving, Max.  The only way to put pressure "on Milo"
(cute --- we're not destroying a country, we're simply slapping around
a very naughty man) is not simply to bomb the country.  Tyrants fear
democracy, and were we guided by better principles than a thoughtless
use of force, we might be able to help foster that; but then that
might require us to look at our past and try to figure out a way to
pressure our government to do something different, but as this is
unpalatable to you, that option is out.  Also note that "anti-Kosovan"
is equated with "anti-bombing" in a facile sweep of the hand, ignoring
the fact that it will be very difficult for the Kosovans to live
peacefully once the cameras in the West have gone home and the KLA
"terrorists" sweep into power.

>> Pointing at inconsistency was not the whole anti-bombing argument -
>and it was not the theme of that critique by any means.  It was merely
>presented in evidence as reason to suspect something other than NATO's
>PR bleatings was at the root of the adventure.  I think it's pretty
>compelling evidence meself.>
>
>It's evidence of bad faith by Nato, for anyone who needed it.  I
>didn't.  In fact, following my counter-intuitive theme echoed by
>the loony Luttwak, it's evidence of a desire to preserve the
>Serbian mandate over Kosovo.  Evidence of a desire to liberate
>Kosovo would be an invasion.

So, you are saying you are pro-invasion and anti-bombing?  Or you are
pro-bombing *and* pro-invasion?  If the desire to liberate
Kosova is equated with the desire for an invasion, what of the
bombs-away only crowd?

>> I just don't understand you on this, Max!  You say a fix was in -
>one that did not have the Albanian Kosovar aspirations at its core at
>all - and yet you ridicule those who opposed the bombing on precisely
>these grounds!>
>
>As I mentioned above, my perception of anti-bombing is not that
>it was motivated by or associated with support for Kosova.  ...

Oh, nothing that, say, Noam Chomsky has been saying since the start
of this mess could be construed as "support for Kosova"?  He only
wanted a serious effort to negotiate, a desire to work within the UN
framework, etc., rather than a hideous bombing campaign that has
generated hundreds of thousands of refugees, and sharply escalated the
atrocities, as was predicted before the bombing started.  But, sharply
escalating the atrocities and generating hundreds of thousands of
refugees is apparently "support for Kosova", by simple definition

>                                                      ....  There
>were tales (originating in Western intelligence services and
>commercial media outlets) of the KLA as terrorist drug runners
>and Kosovar nationalism as of a piece with an international
>Albanian mafia.  ...

How obscene, I mean, telling the truth about the KLA is to express a
lack of interest in the "people of Kosova".  You just can't get away
from the good-guy/bad-guy world-view, can you?

>           ....  There was Kissingeresque hand-wringing about
>national sovereignty and the danger of instability from
>nationalist secession movements.  ...

Apparently you believe that expressing concern about issues of
national sovereignty is mere hand-wringing.  But, to me, international
law is something that we should try to preserve, and to strengthen,
not dismiss contemptuously when it doesn't fit our needs.

>There was and is continual effort to discount reports of Serb
>atrocities (by condemning all conceivable sources for such
>reports).  ...

In other words, there has been an effort to determine what is truth
and what is fantasy plastered on the foreheads of a compliant media?
Gosh, we wouldn't want to scrutinize government handouts about
atrocities would we, since we all know that our government has a
sparkling record regarding the truth...

>There was opposition to Nato establishing any kind of larger role
>in the world.  ...

Which any person concerned with justice in the world would like.  NATO
is a rogue organization, operating outside the bounds of international
law.  Why should anyone wish a larger role for it rather than its
dismemberment?

>                           ....  Much was made of the
>inconsistency and hyporcrisy of Nato, Clinton, etc. vis-a-vis
>other national struggles.  When the tribulations of Kosova were
>raised, people said stuff like, what about East Timor?  As if the
>latter situation somehow invalidated the former.  Very little
>support for Kosova.

How can raising questions about intent "invalidate" the "tribulations
of Kosova"?  Of course you have professed the belief that we are
"doing good" in Kosova by happy accident.


Bill