I must admit I don't know enough about the situation to offer authoritative judgement, but here are my thoughts. If nothing else, perhaps they will prod other more knowledgeable types to chime in with their opinions.
Here is my understanding of the Serbia/Kosovo business (anyone with more info/insight please feel free to correct any misconceptions I may have). When Yugoslavia splintered, Kosovo was independent for a time, but the Serbs put an end to that. Some ethnic Albanians felt strongly enough about it to take up arms, forming the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army, I believe?).
Since the Serbs are stronger militarily, the KLA has to resort to guerrilla tactics, like hit and run raids and hitting "soft" targets, inevitably doing things which under different circumstances would be (appropriately) considered terrorist operations. Maybe they should be thought of in that way, or maybe they really are freedom fighters resisting Serbian tyrrany, I don't know.
So, the Serbs consider Kosovo part of Serbian territory, and conisder the KLA to be separatists. Whatever the case, the Serbs have decided to fight the KLA, and as everyone who lived through the Vietnam era should know, you fight a guerrilla army by "taking the war to the people", i.e. going into the countryside and creating refugees in the regions where the guerrillas enjoy support, where invariably you kill some civilians along the way. This might be intentional or it might just be the inevitable result of the anti-guerrilla campaign, I don't know. The point is its an ugly, messy business, even if you believe the Serbs are trying to exercise "restraint."
So, all this is pretty bad, lots of people being killed, etc. Now, what I'm really curious about, is what the diplomatic situation is like. I watched the news last night and was disgusted (but not surprised) with the coverage. Instead of getting a feel for the diplomatic positions of the two sides, all I saw was mild demonization of Slobodan Milosevic, lots of coverage of the bad things the Serbs are doing in Kosovo, and clips of Clinton saying this may cause a wider war.
There were brief mentions of some interesting other stuff, like the fact that the Serbs had made some kind of offer the day before the bombing, but the details of this offer were ignored. So, what is the Serbian position? What is the position of the KLA? Why is the US implicitly siding with the KLA? Why does Clinton think this will prevent the spread of the conflict, when it is painfully obvious that our bombing the Serbs has massively pissed off the Russians? What if the bombing doesn't bring the Serbs to the bargaining table - what's our next move? I haven't seen any good answers to these questions, or other relevant questions.
Combining the failure to communicate any compelling reason to intervene with the general principle that this is an internal matter and we should keep our noses out of such conflicts, as well as the principle that the use of force should be the option of last resort, I am opposed to bombing.
Brett
>I'm curious. I hardly ever these days play the
>apologist for US imperialism, but the attacks on Serbia
>-- regardless of true motivation! -- seem at least to
>be directed at the right target. Too often in the
>past, as Alinsky and Chomsky among others have pointed
>out, we would have almost mindlessly supported the
>status quo instead, no matter how disgusting.
>
>If we actually do think self-determination is a Good
>Idea, and if we agree that Kosovo is ethnically
>albanian, and if we agree that the Serbs are using
>their superior military strength to suppress the desire
>for self-determination ...then why would we want to
>protest the US bombing of the Serbs?