The reasons that they bombed in the first place are only tangentially related to the particular region this war was conducted in.
The pressure towards so-called 'humanitarian intervention' comes from within the West - it does not arise in the places that get volunteered for a show of force.
This war has been going on for nearly a decade now. It has relocated from Iraq to Bosnia, to Somalia, to Haiti, to Rwanda, back to Iraq and now to Kosovo. It is in essence the same war. The selection of targets is not entirely arbitrary, but primarily for reasons that suit the West.
Its purpose is, as the protagonists have been utterly candid about, the 'remoralisation' of Western societies, through foreign wars. It is the loss of purpose and mission in the West after the Cold War that is the ultimate reason for this increase in military intervetionism (some peace dividend).
And since the sickness is not resolved by slaughtering Serbs, we can be confident that there will be more intervention in the Third World, with a similar basic justification: humanitarian intervention, against 'third world dictators' and 'ethnic hatred'.
After the Gulf War Colin Powell was reported as saying that the West was running out of dictators to make war against, reduced to Castro and Kim Il Sung. As we have learned, dictators are readily created by the media when the political and military elites feel the need to demonstrate their determination.
In message <518B8516EDC0D011BE3F00C04FD4EE5A131C2B at smtp.fair.org>, Seth
Ackerman <SAckerman at FAIR.org> writes
> Although it did terrorize the population, the bombing pretty
>much failed on the "strengthen NATO" score, too. The Europeans have
>concluded that the Americans are incompetent and imperious; that they've
>been left with a big festering sore in their own backyard (and got stuck
>with the tab, too); and that further "allied actions" will only further
>alienate the Russians, which Europe is VERY concerned about. (Especially
>the Germans.)
>
> Now, the Europeans are strengthening their autonomous defense
>identity. Electing Javier Solana as the new EU defense cheif was a
>victory for the Americans. But the long-term effects are to split the
>European away even more, I think.
>
> Plus, the idea of Nato EVER acting out of area again is out of
>the question.
I think this is wishful thinking. The reason that the action was a Nato action rather than a UN one was only that they could not get the security council agreement. The distinction between Nato and the UN is a division of labour, not a conflict of interests. In particular it is pretty meaningless to talk about 'out of area' when East European states are queuing up to join Nato.
Talking up the divisions between the European and the American elites is a poor compensation, when the whole process has been one of elite solidarity against the Serb bogeyman. -- Jim heartfield