Some responses to various folks:
1) Max--
Yeah, sure, I would like to have seen us protect the ethnic Albanians "in their homes." I don't see the current policy or even any proposed use of ground troops as remotely doing that. As for relocating refugees "facilitating expulsion," well maybe. A lot of the refugees apparently don't want to go anywhere else, perfectly understandable, although sitting in horrible camps near the border may not be so great. Personally I think they should be sent to Croatia. There should be some empty (or easily emptied) former Serb dwellings in Krajina and that is not so far from Kosovo-Metohija.
(btw, Max, you've never seen me lecture in person on the former Yugoslavia, which I have done many times over the years. Makes bubble talks seem pretty tame.... )
2) Rob Schaap---
I don't think Russia is going to be in any position to offer a loan to anybody anytime soon. I do think that the idea of having Russia (and its newly revived allies in this Cold War Redux situation) be part of a proposed peacekeeping force in K-M would be a good idea.
3) Greg Nowell---
This will be my last post on this Danube theory, which I continue to view as nonsense. Membership on your precious commission means little. Percentage of GDP tied to Danube trade means a lot more. It is much higher for Austria than for Germany or the Netherlands. It is still higher for Bulgaria and Romania, both of whom are not keen on this bombing. That all the bridges at Novi Sad are down seems to me to put the final kibbosh on this half-baked theory.
I would go along with the more general "hegemony theory" (aka US-Euro-imperialism) put forward by Jim Devine and others, but makes the issue more general. Yes, Germany wants the former Soviet bloc pacified for its business. The Danube is at best a minor sideshow in that more general project.
4) Doug Henwood---
I don't think your answer to Brad DeLong cuts it. Redmond's theory that the US is subordinate to the EU is ridiculous, but the counter theory is also ridiculous. The French have never hesitated to oppose the US on something they did not like. Squeezing Russia is clearly counterproductive and outright stupid. The only part of your argument that remotely makes sense is the Caspian oil scenario. But that is not because there are transport routes through the Balkans. No, this is the "moderate Islamic bloc" theory your revived buddy Lou P. pushed (where was the arugua of peace snarfed?). The linchpin on that theory is Turkey, the US's NATO ally and key player in the pan-Turanic push in Central Asia and with the various ethnically Turkish powers there with oil.
Also, I think there is this more general imperialist hegemony bit. But it is very displaced from what is going on specifically in the Balkans right now.
5) A final point not directed at anybody in particular. I think the debate here is much over World War II versus Vietnam. Those who see Hitler when they look at HIs Excellency say "stop social fascism," etc. Unfortunately I think Vietnam is the relevant comparison. And sending in troops will only lead to the same outcome. The US will lose ultitmately but with a lot more dead. When I first opposed US involvement in Vietnam it was to avoid the "destroy the village to save it" routine. I expected nothing good of Ho but I saw US actions as just destructive. Later I became pro- Ho and cheered his (successors') victory. I must now say that I am thoroughly disillusioned. That regime has done little worth admiration. So it was a so-what outcome. Except that we had a whole lot more dead people on all sides than if the US had gotten out in the first place or avoided going in at all. Barkley Rosser