> . . .
> First of all, we never heard anybody talk about such a plan before NATO's
> bombs started falling.
This borders ridiculous. There was plenty of talk, if one took the trouble to listen to Kosovars. That doesn't mean there was a plan, but the assertion that there was no prior fear of ethnic cleansing is bunk.
> . . .
> Third, if such a plan was known already during autumn, how could the West
> invite representatives of a killer regime to Paris? How could the US send
> ambassador Richard Holbrooke to Belgrade to try to make a last-minute deal
> with such 'a serial cleanser' President?
Making a deal with a murderous tyrant fits perfectly with the anti-imperialist depiction of NATO, and with mine too.
> Fourth - and worst, perhaps of all - if the West knew of such a plan why
> did it do absolutely NOTHING to plan for the humanitarian emergency it
> would cause? Why did Belgrade not actively threaten to prevent it OR
> initiate bombings much earlier? Isn't it simply too immoral to know about
> such a plan and do nothing?
Knowing of a plan and expecting it to be carried out are not the same thing. But even so, why was nothing done? Surprise. Because 'the West' is not a moral exemplar. Nor is NATO a very well-knit fighting machine, particularly in respect to a mission for which it was not designed or organized, hence:
> Seventh, if NATO and the intelligence services of leading NATO countries
> which have been in the region all the time knew about such a plan from
> about October last year - when US super-negotiator Richard
> Holbrooke struck
> the deal with Milosevic - why did NATO not make a better planning of the
> present air campaign? Diplomatically speaking, it looks a bit confused and
> unplanned. . . .
It is totally plausible to me that Nato elected to bomb in the absence of any knowledge of an ethnic cleansing plan, simply to force its will on the Serbian regime. By now Nato's error is obvious.
It does not follow, however, that the left's first priority is to call for a bombing halt. This strengthens Milo's ability to hurt more Kosovars and gives him no incentive to make any deal. Again, the right package and sequence of diplomatic, political, and military moves is not exactly within our purview, nor does it lend itself to broad politics. If there is real support for Kosovan self-determination, that should be topic A. It would follow from that premise that simply bombing Serbs is not a good strategy. You protect Kosovo by sending troops there to do just that, and limit any bombing of Serbia to defense military purposes. If the Serbs abstain from military threats to Kosova, no bombing would be required.
Liberation of Kosovo would clearly put the onus for bombing on the Serbian regime. If you're for self-determination of Kosova, that's the right way to stop the bombing. Failure to emphasize the priority of Kosova is a formula for interminable bombing. Anti-imperialist anti-bombing politics lets Milo off the hook and lets him continue to be the pig that he is, which allows NATO to keep bombing.
mbs