>Barkley was right in an earlier post -- saying in essence that this is
>the battle of the wars, WWII vs. Vietnam. Having spent my formative
>years in the anti(Vietnam)war movement, I look at what's happening in
>Kosovo and think of one word, escalation, and all the evils that
>followed in its train 30 years ago. Chris (and much of the UK, I
>gather) look at Kosovo and have the exact same reflex, substituting
>"appeasement" for "escalation" and reflecting on events of 60 years ago.
>
>Well, Vietnam may be a lost war for the U.S., but I think it is the
>*winning* precedent here. IMO, the dangers of escalation in the
>Balkans far outweigh those of appeasement.
>
>Carl Remick
I think this correctly summarises the conflicting perspectives. Opinion polls in the UK are strongly in favour of sending in ground troops and there is a very strong response to a combined charity appeal for Kosovan refugees.
Whether this compassion amounts to agreeing they could be armed to defend the remaining Albanian villages is little discussed and the impression is that the governments want to keep this off the agenda of public debate, as they did in Bosnia.
There are presumably conflicts between NATO governments not only about whether the Kosovan refugees should be moved far from their country, but whether to continue with massive bombardment of the Serbian economy rather than send in ground troops.
The illogicality of continuing massive bombardments of the whole of Serbia while delaying for logistical reasons the arrival of Apaches that could concentrate only on the territory of Kosovo is not challenged in public.
Hearing Carl Remick's points about the dangers of escalation, I would suggest that these illogicalities are particularly highlighted in anti-war campaigning as a way of challenging the imperialist nature of this war as it has developed and winning the uphill battle for public attention.
I accept some of the thrust of Gar Lipow's post.
Chris Burford
London