--I beg to differ. Diplomatic channels were exhausted. They
may reopen, however...
>2) The bombing has prompted the Serbs to accelerate their atrocities
>against the Kosovars
--Say, rather, that NATO's claim that it might bomb
was keeping the Serbs from accelerating their
atrocities--and now the Milosevic government
(not "Serbs", please: I'm sure most Serbs have
little desire to burn the houses and slit the
throats of people who live in Kosovo) feels
unrestrained.
>3) NATO's motivations are not humanitarian in nature, so that even if the
>bombing campaign succeeds in the sense that Milosevic agrees to a NATO
>protectorate in Kosovo, this may not be in the long term interest of the
>Kosovars or the local Serb population (although it would stop the killing).
--Piffle. NATO's motives (again, I don't like the
collective noun) are mixed.
>4) The bombing has threatened the stability of the region and our relations
>with Russia and China.
--Important, and true.
>5) NATO has flaunted international law, the set of guidelines and rules
>which the international community has agreed should govern international
>relations. In so doing, NATO is merely upholding the priciple of "might
>makes right."
--Which is that governments agree that each gets to slaughter
its own citizens when it feels like it? I feel about
international law like Gandhi felt about Western
Civilization: that it would be a good idea.
>Brett
So why no mention of the big, important reason to think that NATO's actions are a big mistake? That NATO is causing massive death and destruction without having much of an effect on Milosevic's power, objectives, and goals? That weapons are tools for changing an adversary's mind, not for blowing up civilians who "belong" to that adversary?
Brad DeLong