East Timor, Kosovo, and Kuwait

Seth Ackerman SAckerman at FAIR.org
Tue Sep 21 12:24:53 PDT 1999


Reading the fine exchange between Nathan and Jim H. rehashing the Kosovo arguments, I'm struck by Nathan's elision of the question of diplomatic alternatives to bombing. (Yes, I know, it's an ancient argument.)

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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list