Chas Brown rejects the idea that "randomness" could be a or the cause of the Yugoslav war. This reminds me of Einstein's complaint that "God does not play dice." Of course with respect to quantum mechanics we know that She probably does.
Actually I see this as an old question, one that 40- 50 years ago bedeviled leftist existentialists. People like Sartre spent a lot of time worrying about the apparent conflict between a Stalinist-Marxist view of the world that seemed to be full of meaning and determinism versus the individualistic free will and ultimate absurdity implied by his existentialism. We have no escape from this, with randomness contributing to the absurdity of life and its outcomes, including war.
With regard to the "causes of the war," in addition to Euro-periphery pacification, general US hegemonic muscle flexing, interest in Turko-Central Asian oil patches, and the US military-industrial complex desiring funding, and general muddling through, there is just plain idiocy and goofiness, which may or may not be "random." Probably it is not so random. Classical Greek tragedy teaches us of "hubris" which can arise when things seem to be going well. The US leaders had gotten complacent and overly self confident: A little bombing and "they'll" bend to our will. Not so. Hubris led to mistaken and stupid policy that is also tragic in its outcomes.
One more factor of importance in the policymakers' minds is clearly this "NATO's face" factor. This is especially important now that we are thinking about cessation and an endgame. NATO's face must be saved, blah blah blah. But, of course that simply pushes the issue back to why anybody should give a foo about NATO at all. Then I think we are back to Euro-periphery pacification and maybe US arms dealers wanting new markets in the new member countries as factors.
But in fact the absurd randomness of this can be seen in the arguments of the Repugs in the US Congress who voted to oppose the war (while voting for the defense spending increases to supply it). As that inimitable exterminator Tom DeLay notes, there simply is no serious economic or strategic interest involved. In the Gulf War one could point to the price of gasoline and the threat of job losses if Saddam were to sweep into Saudi Arabia. But that, or anything like it, simply is not present in this case. All the economic issues are relatively ephemeral and peripheral.
BTW, Marcus Raskin of IPS had an excellent column in today's Washington Post criticizing the war. Barkley Rosser