> I am struck by the extent to which those who opposed
> > the Kosovo intervention support this one because
> > instead of the U.S., it's the UN.
>
> Well, there a few other minor differences.
>
> - East Timor intervention respects international law. The US intentionally
> and gleefully wiped its ass with it in Kosovo - in fact, I see this
> ass-wiping as a major goal of the intervention. US to world: don't ever
think that
> international law will protect your water plants from cruise missiles.
Right on one, not necessarily on two.
> - Intervention in East Timor has a good chance of stopping an existing
> humanitarian catastrophe. Intervention in Kosovo caused a humanitarian
> catastrophe much worse than the ugly counterinsurgency campaign it
> allegedly tried to stop.
Probably right.
> - Intervention in East Timor will involve ground troops, rather than
> terror bombing of civilians from 15,000 feet.
Right.
> - There seem to be no ulterior motives for intervention in East Timor. In
> Kosovo, there was the issue of rescuing NATO from obsolescence.
Speculative, but plausible.
> > At the same time, it is acknowledged that the UN
> > is a creature of the U.S.
>
> Again speaking strictly for myself, I acknowledge no such thing, if only
> because Russia and China have veto power.
Yup.
In retrospect I gave weight to alleged U.S. diplomatic initiatives when they evidently deserved none. I also understated U.S. responsibility for the Serb campaign (tho I think others did the same re: the Serbs).
I feel no regrets for being soft on the bombing, in light of what the Serbs did in Kosova. Nor do I feel the Kosovar payback, unjust though it is, justifies what the Serbs did before the fact, which some have implied.
mbs