At 18:56 05/05/99 the following letter was reposted.
I note that a lot of debate on these lists is taking the form of reposting material that the subscriber agrees with, not to argue a case, but to bolster a case of which they are already convinced.
I have extracted the passages from Brecher's statement relevant for my response, which follows them.
>May 4, 1999
>
>Congressman Bernie Sanders
>2202 Rayburn Building
>Washington, DC, 20515
>
>Dear Bernie,
>
>This letter explains the matters of conscience that have led me to resign
>from your staff.
>We can agree that the evil to be remedied in this case -- specifically, the
>uprooting and massacre of the Kosovo Albanians -- is serious enough to
>justify military violence if such violence can ever be justified. However,
>the U.S. air war against Yugoslavia fails an ethical test on each of the
>other four criteria.
>The U.S. has consistently opposed sending ground forces into Kosovo, even
>as the destruction of the Kosovar people escalated. (While I do not
>personally support such an action, it would, in sharp contrast to current
>U.S. policy, provide at least some likelihood of halting the attacks on the
>Kosovo Albanians.)
>While it has refused to send ground forces into Kosovo, the U.S. has also
>opposed and continues to oppose all alternatives that would provide
>immediate protection for the people of Kosovo by putting non-or
>partially-NATO forces into Kosovo.
>Less violent alternatives: On 4/27/99 I presented you with a memo laying
>out an alternative approach to current Administration policy.
It stated,
>"The overriding objective of U.S. policy in Kosovo -- and of people of good
>will -- must be to halt the destruction of the Albanian people of Kosovo. .
>. The immediate goal of U.S. policy should be a ceasefire which halts Serb
>attacks on Kosovo Albanians in exchange for a halt in NATO bombing." It
>stated that to achieve this objective, the United States should "propose an
>immediate ceasefire, to continue as long as Serb attacks on Kosovo
>Albanians cease. . . Initiate an immediate bombing pause. . . Convene the
>U.N. Security Council to propose action under U.N. auspices to extend and
>maintain the ceasefire. . . Assemble a peacekeeping force under U.N.
>authority to protect safe havens for those threatened with ethnic
>cleansing." On 5/3/99 you endorsed a very similar peace plan proposed by
>delegations from the US Congress and the Russian Duma. You stated that "The
>goal now is to move as quickly as possible toward a ceasefire and toward
>negotiations." In short, there is a less violent alternative to the present
>U.S. air war against Yugoslavia.
>Current U.S. policy has virtually no
>probability of halting the displacement and killing of the Kosovo
>Albanians. As William Safire put it, "The war to make Kosovo safe for
>Kosovars is a war without an entrance strategy. By its unwillingness to
>enter Serbian territory to stop the killing at the start, NATO conceded
>defeat. The bombing is simply intended to coerce the Serbian leader to give
>up at the negotiating table all he has won on the killing field. He won't."
>(The New York Times, 5/3/99)
>Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to
>participate in or support? Where does that limit lie? And when that limit
>has been reached, what action will you take?
>
>My answers led to my resignation.
>
>Sincerely yours,
>
>Jeremy Brecher
Brecher acknowledges that a policy of sending in ground troops to Kosovo rather than massive bombing of the whole of Serbia would be less violent and more proportionate. He acknowledges that what Serb fascism is doing in Kosovo in principle may merit military action. Including by implication by a hegemonic power like the USA.
However he does not argue the case. And instead argues only one position, to acquiesce in Serb terrorist partition of Kosovo (shades of Munich, Sudetenland, and "peace in our time")
Why not?
I have to conclude that like many on the left he is infected by bourgeois pacificism and thinks there is no alternative but to appease fascism. It is an inevitable consequence of the tactical alliances that the left has often made this century to try to weaken the ruling class.
During the Vietnam War there was no conflict of opportunism in making much of the body bag count at the same time as condemning the imperialist nature of the war.
During the present war, which is imperialist in means, but not in nature, since it is a just anti-fascist war, to play on the body bag issue is a form of reactionary bourgeois pacifism. If the war is just, then it should be carried out by the most appropriate and proportionate means. It is opportunist to argue that it is OK for the USA to bomb massively while being unprepared to risk a single soldier's life.
One of the reasons that this war has an imperialist form, although it has a just cause, is precisely because of this influence of bourgeois pacifism in the left which hesitates to confront fascism. It is the Greens of Germany who are so afraid of German troops being in the field, as if there was something mystically more unpleasant about German troops than any other troops, that is preventing the confronting of fascist armed force with bourgeois democratic armed force. This is *contributing* to the attacks on civilians in Serbia as a whole.
Similarly the Brecher's of the USA are the unwitting allies of the "NATO bombers".
But one of the main lessons of the 20th century is that fascism must be confronted. On this point Blair and Clinton are more on the side of history than Brecher. Repulsive but true for those leftists whose idea of politics is to find a pure refuge for their utopian fantasies free of the opportunism of any compromise.
They may think they have nothing to do with the marxist sects, but they are actually seeking a little pure sect of their own. This neither speeds a qualitative revolution, nor promotes progressive reforms domestically or internationally on the way.
Chris Burford
London