I don't think Russia is equivalent to the UN, the EU, or even Nato as a plausible guarantor of justice.
> 30,000 Russian troops occupy Southeastern Turkey for 3 years,
run its
> government, select its leaders, manage its economy, with free
> range over the rest of the country if need be -- all to "end
the suffering," of course. >>
I don't think this is an accurate rendering of Nato's interest. I don't believe Nato wants Yugoslavia, whether to run its govt, select its leaders, or manage its economy. Nor do I believe Nato is trying to teach anybody a lesson or set an example. It mainly wants an end to embarrassing bloodletting and deportation in Kosova, mostly for reasons of regional stability.
> No negotiations, just an ultimatum: sign or be bombed.
> After all, you can't negotiate with those butchers.
Nor do I think this captures the present or past stance of Nato, e.g., swallow this whole or be bombed.
> Offered these choices, what would the Turks do? What would the
> *Americans* do? Would the Kurds be better off? Would
> we dismiss concerns about sovereignty as a smokescreen to
distract from
> the human rights abuses?
The Turks would obviously resist, and Nato would defend it since Turkey is in Nato, but that isn't particularly relevant. This is too fantastic a scenario to play out much further.
As for the Kurds, I would be interested -- abstracting from your scenario -- in whether *they* thought they'd be better off. And no, I wouldn't care about sovereignty in the face of human rights abuses.
> In light of these considerations, ask yourself again:
> Has the U.S. acted reasonably? Was Rambouillet done in good
faith?
> Were the options for diplomacy exhausted?
The U.S. has acted stupidly, from the standpoint of what I take to be its own interests. There were probably more options for diplomacy. That was then. Now I don't see much scope for diplomacy. I'd buy into almost any initiative that had some prospect of halting violence against Kosovars.
mbs