Good debate, but I have been unable to join in earlier.
On the balance of forces we could all agree that NATO was much more powerful than Serbia, and once committed, was probably most unwilling to withdraw in a manner that could look like a defeat.
BUT within that the need to get acquiescence from 19 countries was a real constraint. My guess is that if the Serbs had not implemented a plan to clear Kosovo as soon as Nato bombing started, but had limited themselves to a robust campaign against the KLA, the alliance would have been under much more pressure to stop bombing.
Countries like Italy and Germany were critical for sustaining the NATO alliance, logistically in the first case, politically in the second. Vocal opinion could easily have swung as strongly against the NATO bombing campaign in Germany and Italy, as it did in Greece.
My impression was about two or three weeks ago at the time of a cluster of humantarian blunders, it was politically critical that Blair made a great show of promoting discussion around a ground invasion, to distract attention from the other option of calling off the campaign altogether.
What will constrain NATO bombing in other areas where it seeks to control? Even allowing for the triumphalism of victory, and the profits to be made by the capitalists in restocking the armaments, and rebuilding the bridges that the armaments destroyed, the broad picture will look pretty desolate in documentaries. NATO has crushed Serb armed nationalist opposition to the assimilation of eastern Europe, but economically FRY will bear these scars for 2 or 3 decades, and will be even more dependent on European capital. It will be commonplace to regret the expenses of reconstruction, and the war that caused the destruction. Even in Britain, the country most in favour of intervention, there is little militaristic triumphalism.
We will be able to judge how uneasy Europe is about the transatlantic NATO strategy in the appointment of a replacement to Solana. If they get Michael Portillo that will be a signal for maintaining a strong transatlantic axis and US hegemonism. But Solana's move to the EU is a signal that it wishes to speak more strongly militarily and diplomatically independently of the US.
NATO and the US has been forced to make some concessions. Even though they defied Russia in launching the war, they had to court Russia to manage consensus among the big powers. It is having to tread carefully around Pristina airport.
They had one of the most prominent oligarchs, Chernomyrdin, as their secret ally in Russia. But the US had to take on board a real risk of a strengthened alliance between Russia and China. China asserted its indigation on a world stage, and was noted. It continued its policy of using its possible veto on the Security Council, with discretion, but it did oblige NATO to go through a complicated time table to get the UN seal of approval.
Yes the US may take further initiatives outside Europe but if it wants to enhance its role as policeman of the world and have a chance of subsequent endorsement by the UN, it will have to take on board the limitations of mass bombing to control a population that believes it has right on its side.
Intervention in Somalia turned out to be a mess. Is the US more or less likely to bomb peace into Burundi, if ethnic cleansing breaks out there again? I would have thought less. Yesterday at a Chicago graduation ceremony Clinton said he had been in touch with a range of African governments to find ways to prevent the Rwanda massacres happening. So the message is that national sovereignty will no longer be sacrosanct, but surely no one imagines that stealth bombers could have stopped the massacre of Tutsis with machetes.
Will the US/NATO impose a peace on Kashmir and bomb either India or Pakistan, whichever appears the more recalcitrant? Its not just the nuclear weapons both countries now have. It is the respect that this symbolises. I would have thought western bourgeois political opinion would be highly alarmed and would roundly condemn a bombing initiative in Kashmir.
Chris Burford
London