> (Sigh). As much as I hate to admit it, I have to agree with you there.
> Only peacekeepers on the ground could stop this whole bloody mess, and
> that's precisely what Serbia simply refused to allow. They had their
> reasons, to be sure, but defending the human rights of Kosovars was not
> among them. The bombing may have accelerated the bloodshed slightly, but
> the previous Yugoslaughters showed that you don't need F-117s to do evil
> under the sun.
>
> I'm not sure it makes any sense to burn Uncle Sam in effigy on this one.
> Make no mistake, the EU is calling the shots here; we're just the
> hired mercs, called in to do the dirty work. In 1993 the nascent EU did
> nothing, and Bosnia was turned into a charnel house. 1999 is the Year of
> the Euro, and the EU apparently doesn't want to make the same mistake
> twice.
>
> -- Dennis
i'm not sure i get this argument. i mean, okay, let's assume that the eu is calling the shots: and let's say *not* intervening would bring increased instability to this region (if that's possible). i'm not sure what all this has to do with "the year of the euro"--after all, this is not just about good pr for the new currency, right? (of course, given the way political becomes economic instability, i can imagine this argument, too; but has fdi been streaming into the balkans recently without my noticing it? or even into italy?) nonetheless, intervening in the way we have has hardly preserved what little sense of "stability" there was, unless you believe that we have to destroy kosovo in order to save it (a favorite clinton strategem domestically, remember [ie. welfare]).
my question, then. do we really think that the eu is so stupid as to believe that an air campaign could accomplish its goals? or does the u.s. have more to say on tactics than maybe we're allowing for? after all, ground troops don't look any less like imperialism--they just don't look as good on tv, especially when they are being dragged through the streets. in other words, i just don't see what's to be gained here except the ability to say "we tried" while generating the least amount of bloodshed.
another good reason to be cautiously (un)dialectical about american military activity: thomas l. friedman's cover story in the nyt magazine. blurb on the cover: "for globalism to work, america can't be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is." inside, he calls clinton a guardian of the social safety net to justify our new global hegemony. ugh.
best christian