>That the word from any U.S. Administration on justifications for military
>action is untrustworthy is obvious enough. Even testimony on simple facts
>is not credible, judging by the consistent historical record. You just
>can't trust a secretary of state. But it should be just as clear that the
>word of such persons as Saddam or the Serbs is not currency either. In the
>matter of atrocities, both sides are apt to lie without hesitation. It will
>always be hard for external observers to sift out the truth.
This seems like a good argument not to support EITHER side, which is exactly my position.
>The criticism that bombing "won't work" is clearly unsatisfactory and
>disingenuous, since it implies that bombing is not a sufficient military
>response. If military action against military targets is justifiable,
>bombing them is too.
Why is this exactly? And who said action against military targets is justifiable?
As for the "won't work" business, if the bombing doesn't lead to any constructive resolution of the conflict (and I haven't seen any compelling argument that it will), why is it deserving of support? It is perfectly legitimate to ask what we can hope to achieve through bombing, what kind of political settlement it will tend to favor or promote. And perfectly legitimate to withhold support if these questions can't be answered satisfactorily.
>The fundamental question is whether the lives of many innocent people are
>under immediate, deadly threat at the hands of the Serbs. The uselessness
>of much of the argument I've seen lies in its neglect of this issue, or even
>a forthright rejection of it out of wayward principle. In so doing, the
>moral high ground is conceded to the Administration and left consigns itself
>to the political wilderness of the Ethically Confused. We are thrown back
>on a more-or-less dishonest argument about effectiveness, or even
>neo-Kissingerian arguments about staying out of sovereign states' internal
>affairs. Of course, we should understand why the GOP is soft on
>intervention; they are the party that officially doesn't give a shit.
>
>Here's a thought experiment. Imagine a debate on whether the left should
>support the response of a U.S., bursting with imperial ambition, to
>Krystalnacht or to the Japanese militarists' rape of Nanking. Think of all
>the bad reasons why FDR would be interested in such a response, but consider
>also the real facts of the situations, the consequences of the U.S.
>abstaining, and the consequences of the U.S. intervening.
Max, how about using this principle - you are responsible for your own actions, not for those of others. If the aims of US intervention are to dominate foreign countries/markets and subvert their own autonomy, then this is something we can oppose without a guilty conscience, even when circumstances lead to a situation where our intervention thwarts the imperialistic drive of another power.
This doesn't mean you can't oppose brutality when it is committed by others. But the use of military force isn't the only option in these cases. You can publicize the crimes of other nations, isolate them diplomatically, impose economic sanctions (hopefully humane - i.e. you don't starve them to death), etc. There are all sorts of options short of military force.
Why does the "left," whatever that is, need to compromise? Its pretty easy to oppose Milosevic and to simultaneously oppose the bombing campaign. In fact, its impossible to do otherwise without abandoning underlying values and principles.
>If you think history would have turned out better in the absence of U.S.
>intervention, you would be consistent in automatically condemning U.S.
>intervention in Haiti, Somalia, Kuwait, Bosnia, and now Kosovo. In other
>words, you would be a Trot or a pacifist.
As a matter of fact I do condemn US (military) intervention in each of these cases, and I am neither a Trot nor a pacifist. There are other options available, although the US media tries pretty hard to limit the debate to the military intervention vs. isolationist options. But these are far from the only options available.
>"Stop the bombing" is pretty uncritical. It serves Slobodan Whatzis-name,
>pure and simple. Interventionist situations are diverse, I would suggest,
>not all one thing. They deserve to be sorted out. We ought to be
>uncomfortable with uncritical support for either side, since both are
>suspect in their own ways. But one mark in favor of Blair and Clinton is
>that there is little reason to suspect a desire on their part to go into the
>Balkans and arbitrarily try to massacre any particular local population.
>They pursue economic subjugation, but we can confidently predict that
>outcome no matter who wins this struggle.
This is nonsense. What about publicising Milosevic's crimes and working to build international support against such actions, but stopping short of bombing Serbia? Would this be serving Milosevic's cause? There's more to opposition than the mindless rant of "stop the bombing," althought that's certainly an important aspect of it.
>No revolutionary vision is sufficiently compelling to justify abandoning a
>people to genocide. If you don't think that is at issue, that's an argument
>but I haven't heard anyone make it yet. Otherwise, I'd say the revolution
>can wait. It's likely to in any event.
Again, why is the only alternative to a bombing campaign "abandoning a people to genocide." This is ludicrous. Besides, if you REALLY wanted to stop the Serbs from killing right now, you'd send in ground troops. Bombing is simply retaliation - i.e., keep killing in Kosovo and we'll kill some Serbians. The bombing isn't "stopping genocide." In fact, from all accounts I've seen Serb violence in Kosovo has INCREASED since the bombing started, a fact which undermines your entire argument.
Brett