Good to see that you are still sentient.
1) I am one of those who at several points effectively declared the UCK/KLA "kaput" on the ground in Kosmet. But actually Louis P. has forwarded at least one report (and I have seen others) that claim that it is not kaput on the ground but still holding out in several locations. More significantly, as I noted, if there is no return of Albanian Kosovars to their homes and the humongous refugee camps are in place, His Excellency will face an indestructible UCK/KLA. Maybe they can't win, but why should they? I think you have bought too much into some kind of Muslim Albanian nationalism. Even if they don't win, they will be a very very difficult thorn in the side of the Serbs in Kosmet and will have a whole lot more serious external support than does the PLO, even without any overt arming by the US. It would be a quagmire and a bad one.
2) The Hussein argument is not a good one for two reasons regarding a possible overthrow by dissidents of His Excellency after a complete bombing halt. First is that Saddam is facing external aggression and attacks and thus can use the same argument against dissidents that His Excellency can use now, but would not be able to if the bombing stopped. The second is that, despite all the huffing and puffing alleging fascism on the part of His Excellency, he is not nearly the murderous thuggish scoundrel that Saddam is. Saddam was personally a murderer and agent of the secret police who with his own hands killed people in a very brutal fashion. I do not support the embargo against Iraq, but Saddam truly is a thug who does not give a foo about his own people in a way that the egomaniacal and power hungry Milosevic is not. The latter was nearly overthrown a few years ago by street demonstrations. There is democracy, if somewhat limited, in Serbia. There is none whatsoever in Iraq.
3) I fully agree that any resolution of the situation with a halt to bombing that is not followed by serious peace moves by His Excellency will be "a lengthy process." But I do not see it as any lengthier than the likely process with bombing. Has this brought His Excellency to the peace table or halted or slowed his drive to "cleanse" the Albanian Kosovars? Not that I can see in any way shape or form.
4) Given the strike that hit Albanian civilians in Kosmet yesterday, I would say that the beneficiaries of a bombing halt will include members of all the ethnic groups currently residing in Yugoslavia.
5) A secession by Montenegro would be a serioius blow to His Excellency. That republic provides the direct outlet to the sea for Serbia.
6) I don't think the current situation is necessarily a "test" of military Keynesianism at all. Profits can flow to the military- industrial complex whose agents can encourage the war policy, even if the total sum of those is relatively small and of little macroeconomic significance. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> To: pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu <pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu> Cc: Lbo-Talk <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Thursday, April 15, 1999 11:09 AM Subject: [PEN-L:5319] RE: NYC antiwar rally set for Friday
>> Subject: [PEN-L:5312] NYC antiwar rally set for Friday
>> Friends and co-workers, . . .
>>
>
>I like the spirit of this message. I could go to a rally like
>this, albeit with reservations discussed below. It's a nice
>corrective to some of the primitive anti-imperialism (or
>anti-Albanianism) on this list. If we all observed it, a lot of
>rancor would have been precluded.
>
>But of course in calling for a halt to *all* NATO military
>action, we are only left with the following recourse for the
>put-upon Muslims:
>
>> We call for an immediate return to diplomacy, by involving the
>good offices of the United Nations, and through a direct
>involvement of the Russian government, with every hope that this
>will result in the return of the refugees to their homes in
>Kosovo/a. . . . >
>
>I wonder if anyone involved in the composition of this talked to
>anybody from the Muslim community, or to any Muslims on the left,
>and I wonder what they might have said. That's a real question,
>not a rhetorical one.
>
>Underlying the call for a cessation of NATO withdrawal is a
>resignation to the 'normal' rampage of Serbian counter-insurgency
>forces in Kosova. Even worse, we seem to rule out a priori any
>source of information about atrocities against Muslims. The
>Western media always lie, except when they reveal information
>damaging to NATO, and the refugees lie because they want
>sympathy. I asked Louis who legitimate sources might be, and all
>he could supply is Misha Glenny. I suppose Robert Fiske would be
>another, but in any case no independent journalists can operate
>in areas controlled by Serbs to report atrocities that "might" be
>transpiring. (Duh) All they can do is roam around Serbia where,
>naturally, all they can report is the harm to Serbs from NATO
>and, occasionally, Milo. By this timetable, as Jim Devine
>indicated, we would never know about mass murder until years
>later, when there was enough calm in the area for people to start
>digging. I don't think this is acceptable.
>
>Barkley, a model of erudition and objectivity for us all on this
>question, if not others ( :-) ), raises a similar point in one of
>his scenarios:
>
>" 2) His Excellency Keeps On Fighting (ugh).
> This would be incredibly stupid, but who knows? He
>now would lose all international political support, including
>from the Russians. "
>
>If he's not being bombed, he doesn't need as much support.
>
>"He would face a vigorous UCK/KLA
>campaign that he would be unable to defeat."
>
>LP and others say the KLA is kaput. In any case, if Serbia can
>stand the bombing they can afford to play cowboys and indians
>with the KLA for years, spared the pain of the bombing.
>
>" He would now be in a quagmire. After a bit, his internal
>opponents
>would revive, no longer facing the charge of treason for
>supporting bombers. "
>
>We're still waiting for the tyrannical Hussein, among others, to
>be overthrown too. This is not much of a sop to Muslims.
>
>" This would be one of the most
>positive outcomes of a cessation of bombing. Montenegro
>would secede and would be supported by the entire international
>community. That would be the end of the Federal Republic
>of Yugoslavia. "
> Sooner or later he would have to sue for peace. Then"
>
>Sooner or later Israel will have to make peace with the
>Palestinians, who in contrast to Kosova/Serbia, are nostril to
>nostril with Israelis on a daily basis. But nobody's holding
>their breath.
>
>"there would have to be some kind of international peace-
>keeping force. Maybe he could retain formal sovereignty
>over Kosmet, but the longer he held out, the less likely that
>would be. Some kind of autonomy would have to emerge.
>Rugova would be his best bet, although he has totally
>damaged his credibility by rebuffing him so long. Rights
>of all minorities would have to be guaranteed by the
>outside force (again, definitely including the Russians).
>If the province became either an independent Kosova or
>a Kosova province of Albania, then a more general Balkans
>settlement would be advisable, including a union of Serbia
>with the Bosnian Srpska Republika, and possibly other
>changes and border adjustments. "
>
>Sounds like a lengthy process.
>
>" In any case, the Kosovar Albanians would not be worse
>off than they are now. "
>
>TIME would not seem to be on their side in this scenario, in the
>sense that the longer it plays out, the more chance the Serbs
>have to drive them out of Kosova altogether.
>
>> The bombing is not helping them in
>anyway or slowing the Serbian campaign against them in
>any way. And for sure, the bombing would halt the killling
>and destruction elsewhere and rescue the US and NATO >
>
>Right. The "for sure" here is enjoyed by the Serbs alone. Given
>a halt to all bombing, plus the lack of presence of peace-keepers
>on the ground, the national cause of Kosova is relegated to the
>same status of, say, Timor. In other words, they're screwed.
>
>> from the quagmire of further involvement into which it is
>sinking. (BTW, the almighty Albright continues to oppose
>both troop entry and arming the UCK/KLA, and so therefore
>so does Billy Boy). >
>
>On a slightly different note, this affair will a good test of the
>military Keynesian hypothesis which, incidentally, I have no
>vested interest in refuting or supporting; the idea of the
>economy depending on military procurement is not implausible to
>me. The comments discounting military spending and arguing sans
>data (which is freely available) for some kind of "militarized
>economy" have been, uh, qualitative and hence, um, speculative,
>one might say.
>
>The defense budget can go in any direction. There is fodder in
>recent events for the argument to "re-arm," per Patsy B. The
>Feds have lots of dough. Thus far nobody has proposed much in
>the way of increases, as I noted in providing data a week or so
>ago. The paper said the other day the DoD is talking about
>another four billion or so to pay for current operations in the
>Balkans. This is chump change. Total military spending is $276
>billion, and the GDP is in the eight trillion neighborhood.
>
>I also reiterate the political-economic issue looming over
>this -- what is the proper emphasis on five, ten, or even twenty
>billion more annually for defense (twenty -- about one percent of
>the Federal budget -- would be a lot, by recent historical
>standards), while the Feds propose to provide $130 billion and
>more annually (mostly from payroll taxes, to boot), to rentiers
>in return for government bonds? Or to roll god knows how many
>hundreds of billions of payroll tax revenue into the stock market
>for the sake of "saving Social Security." Hello?
>
>No justice, no peace,
>
>mbs
>
>