>But I wouldn't carry a sign in a parade which, for all practical purposes,
>indicted Clinton and gave Milo a pass.
Why does opposing one of them require supporting the other? Why not indict them both?
>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.
>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.
How is this the fruit of *anti-imperialism*? Do the Serb tanks belong to the US left? The fact that otherwise thoughtful and reasonable folks can make these kinds of statements is testimony to the power of propaganda. Let's set the record straight - the responsibility of the current Kosovo tragedy rests squarely on the shoulders of Milosevic, hardly an anti-imperialist. And the responsibility for the loss of life among Serb civilians and the destruction of Serb infrastructure rests squarely on the shoulders of NATO (Clinton, Blair, etc.). Anyone calling NATO an anti-imperialistic organization has a few screws loose. The left (or the segment of the left which has opposed the bombing) is virtually the only group that has a clean conscience.
>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.
Almost every word of this paragraph demands refutation. Here goes:
I take exception to your charge that the left has failed to "press for a constructive intervention." Intervention does not have to be (and usually should not be) a military operation. Mediation, diplomatic pressure, etc. are all means of trying to settle a dispute and to try to reach the most humanitarian and benign outcome. After reading all the posts regarding Kosovo on this list, its clear to me that diplomatic channels were not exhausted when the bombing began. For example, why was the UN excluded from the negotiation process?
I fail to see how pressing for a diplomatic settlement (which everyone seems to agree is ultimately the only way to put an end to this business - even the bombing campaign was initially designed to force Milosevic to agree to the terms of the Rambouillet treaty) somehow gives a "green light" to ethnic cleansing, while the military option somehow takes a stand for human rights. It should be clear to everyone by now that bombing turned out to be the most effective way to insure the Albanians were forced from their homes. As both Gen. Wesley Clark and the CIA predicted.
Your insinuation that a lack of support for military intervention is tantamount to isolationism is also false. What do you call diplomacy? The whole concept of the UN is to non-violently mediate disagreements between states. This is far from an isolationist stance. And of course this is the organization which NATO decided to exclude from the situation, but an option which most of us opposed to the use of force would support.
You also imply that "it won't work" is a way to say "it costs to much" and save face. This is also absurd, especially since the bombing really HASN'T worked, at least not in terms of preventing Milosevic from ejecting the Albanians from Kosovo. Sure, those who hold these positions will be on the same side on this particular issue, but the difference is important and real. And this says NOTHING about whether or not you feel sympathy for the Albanians. In fact, since the bombing *has* made things worse, you could argue that the people opposed to the bombing are the *only* ones reflecting sympathy for the Albanians that have any credibility. And probably the only ones displaying any sympathy for the Serbian civilians who are suffering under the NATO bombardment.
Brett