Many people have said that (a) only an invasion of ground troops could actually have stopped Milosevic from cleansing Kosovo, and (b) that the hugely accelerated expulsion of Kosovars was a logical and predictable outcome of the bombing.
What if the NATO high command was as smart as us, and thought the same? After all, the idea that air power cannot win by itself is all but an orthodox military gospel. So what if NATO high command agreed that an invasion was the only solution, but saw no political backing for it? Perhaps their reasoning would be as follows: we'll strike and hope he folds. But if he does what we expect -- ejecting Kosovars on a massive scale -- that will provide us with the political backing to invade. And nothing else will.
Perhaps? This of course leaves the ends undiscovered, and doesn't address the morality of either means or the ends. I'm simply suggesting there might be a rationality in the means. Because it does seem that the stream of refugees is making a lot of people queasy who would have been able to stand back and do nothing a week ago. And it does seem that it is now at least possible to get political backing for an invasion that last week would have been unthinkable.
Just an idea.
Michael