Recently I read on a list for diplomatic historians a very extensive exchange about Rambouillet and the prospects last Spring for a diplomatic settlement to the Kosovo issue. The gentleman arguing NATO's brief (that war was the only alternative) simply withered under scrutiny. It occurred to me that Nathan has not to my awareness explained why he believes, in his words, that "intervention was a better option for the Kosovars than non-intervention."
By now, so many respectable mainstreamers have admitted that diplomacy was the better course -- Thomas Friedman of the NY Times, Lord David Owen, Lord Carrington, Steven Erlanger (Balkan bureau chief of the NY Times), Michael Mandelbaum of the Council on Foreign Relations. So Nathan, why do take a more hawkish line than these figures?
Why would a diplomatic settlement have been worse for the Kosovars than the massive violence which ensued?
Seth