We could still have an unserious debate. For instance, I agree that bombing gave Milo cover to be more brutal than otherwise in the given time frame. I do not agree that bombing necessarily rendered the Kosovar position worse over the longer term. In other words, with no bombing I would say Kosovo could have gotten into similar straits over a more protracted period. Milo could have gradually escalated his criminal deeds to simlar effect, helped by NATO rhetorical dithering and provocations by the KLA. Semicolon.
> It seems to me that as a proponent of the bombing, you are in a
weak
position to condemn other points of view from the perspective of
the
welfare of the Kosovars. >
I'm happy to concede my position in this is weak. This is a tough thing to deal with when all parties to the conflict have non-trivial shortcomings. Moreover, at this point in time my position is pretty much gratuitous. Kosova is screwed.
I still think an emphasis on self-determination for Kosova in the face of Milo's behavior was preferable to reflexive anti-bombing and remains valid in principle. And as I've said umpteen times, I'm against bombing civilians altogether, and I'm not "for" bombing so much as favoring a different focus of agitation. But I'm repeating myself (again).
mbs