By way of short preface, I'd like to repeat my observation that some of the justifications of the Milo victory line are premised on inflated/distorted views of the Rambouillet conditions. In particular, people got bent out of shape about the treaty giving NATO military free reign in Serbia, assuming wrongly in my view that this reflected an intention to occupy it. But if there was no such intention, then the lack of any such provision in the current settlement is not a victory for Milo.
> Russia - big time winner (a good thing);
Agree, though 'big' seems an exaggeration. More like a victory of ambulation over prostration.
> Yugoslav army - winner (especially versus their
> domestic competitors, the police);
I don't see this, nor do I care;
> Yugoslav nationalists - winners (a bad thing);
I'd say losers (a good thing). They've lost the cradle of Serb culture and civilization (sic) to NATO and UN control and a population of 'foreigners.'
> Yugoslav democratic opposition (or whatever is left of
> it) - loosers
I'd say winners. They have more space to criticize Milo, who has presided over the incredible shrinking Serbian nation.
> Kosovar guerillas - loosers (they will have to now fight NATO)
Winners. They can now organize directly in their homeland and contest for political leadership.
> Kosovar people - big time loosers
Right, though they are better off with the settlement than before it. I take the point that with a different background of diplomacy before March they might have been spared much of their agony, but that's water over the dam.
> US military industrial complex - winner of short term contracts
to repleace used munitions, but may loose in the long run on
international weapons sale >>
I don't see the latter point. Rightly or not, people think the U.S. "won" with its gadgets. Logical response: buy more gadgets.
> NATO - looser in a long run (the International Capital might
find it
cheapet to buy rougue nations instead of fighting them)
Long run, who knows. Short run, big winners. They won, Milo lost.
> European social democrats - loosers
Winners; they won, Milo lost, putting aside the implications for their identity.
> US democrats - loosers
Definitely better off in the wake of the settlement. No question about it. Maybe they lose the 200 votes on LBO, but they wouldn't have gotten many of them in the first place. Lose the Serb vote in Ohio. Nationally, though, they look more capable of running the military, in the past a major weakness for them politically.
> European unity - winner, collective butt-kicking, cf. sports
team, the
military, street gangs, kkk - are perhaps th eoldest male bonding
ritual;
Sure, but how can this follow if NATO and the EU are losers?
> Leaders of rogue nations - perhaps not winners, but can sleep
assured that
their technologcial backwardness may be an advantage after all >>
Losers. Bombing is a cinch if they offend the West. Might not depose them, but could cause them considerable grief.
> Peace dividend - a what? does anyone still remember that old
liberal joke? >>
A clear look at the Fed budget will show there has indeed been a large peace dividend already. It has been spent on Medicare and Medicaid and frittered away in tax cuts and now budget surpluses. The effects on it from the war look to be very small. If the military budget went up $20 billion annually (on top of $280 b in a $1800b total) that would be a lot.
> I am pretty sure that spin doctors and propaganda machine will
be saying
otherwise - but if you believe them, hey, Clinton did not have
sex with
Monica either. >
It wasn't sex, it was reverse alimentary resuscitation.
Doctor Spin