But there are a few but's.
1. The charge that bombing is designed to worsen matters is credible in the sense that any fool can see it does not accomplish the ostensible objective, in and of itself. But there is little or no explanation as to the motive for making things worse.
2. The case for international law is well-taken. So is the critique of the U.S. government's destructive role in this context. But neither Chomsky nor the scholars he cites are convincing as to the capacity for such a regime to effectively suppress barbarism in general, or genocide in Kosovo right now. (Of course, our "revolutionary defeatists" would have nothing but contempt for any pretension of international capitalist law. They have no business invoking Chomsky for support.)
3. Here's a quote from the article that I'd like to emphasize:
"For those who do not adopt the standards of Saddam Hussein, there is a heavy burden of proof to meet in undertaking the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international order. Perhaps the burden can be met, but that has to be shown, not merely proclaimed with passionate rhetoric."
This means a NATO intervention is not something to reject on principle. So let's have more rational argument and unbiased provision of facts (or of conflicting accounts), and let's reject propagandistic selection of cross-posting, ad hominem remarks, guilt-by-association, and other imputations of bad faith among list members.
mbs