" . . . 10) Max's argument that refugees should not be relocated so that they can be kept nearby to be relocated into Kosmet reminds me of the Arab argument against assimilating Palestinian refugees, who have been kept in second class status throughout the Arab world (except in Jordan) and who remain in miserable camps years after their initial expulsion. Yes, setting up camps near the border might play into Clinton's hands, but I see nothing good coming of this. The hard fact that neither Max nor any of the other pro-bombers candeal with is that His Excellency is near achieving his goal and there is notthing anybody can do about it."
Jeeeeezus, Barkley. I never said they should not be relocated. I did say their relocation facilitates their expulsion, and that protecting them in their homes would be (quickly becoming would have been) preferable.
At this point, as you say, the expulsion appears to have irreversible momentum, if it hasn't been completed altogether. Meanwhile, from the news reports, NATO bombing of purely civilian facilities appears to be expanding, while Clinton says "we're in it to win it," and "no way ground troops," which adds up to a formula for interminable bombing of anything and everything from top to bottom. I am against this. I said I would be days ago, when they had started by confining themselves -- more or less -- to military targets. But I wouldn't carry a sign in a parade which, for all practical purposes, indicted Clinton and gave Milo a pass. I would support a KLA rally, provided it focused on self-determination and didn't revel in the destruction of Serbia.
I can deal with the fact that Slobo is close to winning. But as someone may have noticed, I'm stubborn. I cannot reconcile myself to this triumph of injustice. We don't accept it in other contexts, so I fail to see why we should acquiesce here. NATO evidently has no intention of resolving it constructively, just as the rich countries have stood by in similar situations elsewhere, as many have noted.
I fail to see any victory in the decay of NATO. Its main mission -- contra the USSR and Warsaw Pact -- was accomplished in spades. The French didn't need NATO to quell the '68 upsurge; all they did was ring up West Germany. The EU doesn't need NATO now if all it wants to do is lay waste to annoying peripheral regions. The US only makes it a little easier. Military keynesianism would seem to be a great policy for the EU.
Shit happens, again. A people is (are?) driven from its homeland. If this is the fruit of anti-imperialism, I'd say it needs a rethink.
We could turn this whole argument around by saying the failure of the left to press for a constructive intervention gives a green light to what we're witnessing. The left is blocked with "objectively anti-imperialist" isolationists like Ollie North and Pat Buchanan. Ollie, Pat, and the A-I left agree that Milo stinks and he may be doing bad things, though we can't be terribly certain how bad, and we've seen worse elsewhere. But "it won't work" rides easily with "it's not worth it -- e.g., the price of fixing this is too high, and the Clinton policy of balking at more than a cheap price won't work." This all boils down to a high threshold for distress (described by NATO critics as 'hand-wringing' and 'bleeding hearts'). That bimbo Clinton is thereby afforded the moral high ground, which he clearly does not deserve, since he's the only one reflecting sympathy for Albanians.
I'm trying to wind down on this issue and obviously not succeeding.
mbs