As soon as Serbia, Iraq, Iran, and the rest of their ilk have successfully convinced the rest of the World to join them in the 19th century. If we are to be called hypocrites every time we oppose an evil that our grandfathers indulged in, we might as well just dig the moat and spend the rest of our days in blissful, moral apathy. Just because we failed the Tutsis, the Sudanese Christians, and the Tibetans does not make our effort to aid the Kosovo Albanians an unworthy one. Instead of saying “Why now?” we should be saying “It’s about time!”
This may sound childish, but Serbia has been asking to have its butt kicked for several years now, and if NATO can do it without severely damaging the civilian population, I’m all for it. This is a chance for us to preempt the sorts of horrors we’ve always criticized ourselves for ignoring.
PapaBear, I agree with you, but please reread my original post. I think we have to rethink our entire position if we are going to have anything resembling a rational policy. We are, with NATO, becoming the “policemen of the world,” and slowly abandoning the neoisolationist stance of the right (France excepted; someone once commented that if the UN offered a resolution that the sun would rise in the morning, the French would abstain). The Cold War may be over, but that is just the start of where in the hell we stand.
Don’t we have a responsibility to define more clearly what we are doing and why? We have ignored Africa, so when do we become involved and why? “Policemen of the world” is too strong, and so is “imposition of moral right.” What are we doing, where, and why is of paramount importance. This is not just Kosovo.
If we are going to do this, there must be new ground rules, not ad hoc rationalizations for each situation. What are we going to do with these artificially created situations and why?
I think a policy of “do good where you can!” is a rational one. I, and apparently the powers that be (the NATO leaders), believe that bombing the hell out of the Yugoslav military complex is a good thing. It’s also a thing that we CAN do. If the Chinese start ethnically cleansing the Central Asian Plains of ethnic Mongolians, it would obviously be a really stupid thing to bomb Bejing. A mixture of morality and practicality may be difficult but it is not irrational.
As a strictly practical matter, I think the involvement of NATO forces in the Balkins is a great stabilizer in the region. What would have happened if we didn’t intervene? NATO counties would have had no moral obligation to help Albania and Macedonia with the Albanian refugees (if you’re one of those idiots who believe NATO bombing is the cause of the exodus, stop reading now. I won’t be able to talk any sense into you.) Now you have ethnic tensions in those countries. The resulting civil strife would quickly shake out to a battle between Muslims and Eastern Orthodox Christians. It wouldn’t take long for Greece and Turkey to repeat their Cyprian folly of the 70s. Only now, it isn’t conveniently confined to an island.
Unfortunately, for those of us who support NATO’s action, there’s no way to prove that the alternative would be worse.
What if there is another Rhuandan-style slaughter in Africa? I think we should do what we should have done a few years and a million deaths ago. Go in, disarm the killers. If we have to leave 5,000 troops there for the next 10 years, so be it. Remember the alternative! It’s nothing more than you’d hope to do yourself in your personal life. Do good where you can!
I agree with people who say we went into this thing less then fully prepared, but we’re on Milosovich’s schedule here, not NATO’s. NATO and the UN debated and planned for years before deciding on a policy in Bosnia. Dutch UN troops had no orders when Serbs slaughtered hundreds of Muslims before their very eyes. One simple order: “Stop the Serbian displacement and extermination of the people in Sebrinica (SP?)” would have allowed these men to do what I’m sure they knew was right.
I’m proud of the fact that NATO had the balls to go off half-cocked when neccessary. If they’d spent time searching for a full proof (what some might wrongly call “rational”) policy the planes would never leave the ground.
“Doing good” is a wonderful sentiment, but I’d hardly call it a “policy.”
Why is it good to intercede in Yugoslavia, but not, say, in Rwanda? Is it because we identify more with Europeans? Because we got burnt in Somalia and now Africa is off-litmits? If so, our attitudes need some review.
In Kuwait we were reining in a dangerous dictator, but we were also worried about oil. I agree that we were “doing good,” but we were also “helping ourselves.” Is self-interest or national interest a prerequisite to doing good?
Who will we help in the future, those that we feel good in helping, or those that need it? Who decides who we help and why?
What I’m saying is that there is no policy now, just reactions to individual situations.
I fully understand your point of view, jdv, but the World is a messy place. The World has always moved faster than policy. The United States has no choice but to react on a situational basis.
The affairs of nations can’t be run like the American Judicial system. If we allow precedents to rule our actions our hands will forever be tied. We are the most powerful and influencial country in the World and we no longer need to stand on the sidelines until our direct interests are threatened. Politicians can justify aggression by cooking up “national interests” anywhere in the world. It’s harder to make the moral arguement. The moral argument for action in Serbia is a sound one.
I think I stated in an ealier post that I thought sticking our head in the ground during the Rhuanda slaughter was a mistake. I also think that the deaths of a couple dozen Rangers in Somalia was a tragic yet not unacceptable trade off for the good we did for millions of starving people.
I’m sure some people think my additude toward putting our troops in harm’s way is cavalier. I for one feel there’s more to serving in the armed forces than a paycheck and the GI bill. I wish recruiters would explain to their recruits that soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are expected to actually fight wars and that they are taking the chance that they might die in one when they sign on the dotted line.
Unfortunately, I see a disturbing trend of the US only helping people who are being opressed by second rate armies that we can roll over easily. That was the case with Iraq. That was the case with Somalia. NATO thought that was the case with Sebia. If we only confine our attention to the little guys, them Saddam Husein and Slobodon Milosevich are 100% correct to call us bullies and cowards. The real test of moral leadership would be if we were willing to stand up to the Chinese for what they are doing to Tibet.
“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island
You’re right, Dice, but in the case of a powerful country like China or Russia, one needs to attack in a way that isn’t suicidal. We should have cut off all but the most basic diplomatic relations with China after Tinniman Square. Bush and Clinton have sold out their principles for a little Chinese lucre.
I think of countries that oppress their own as “international wife beaters”. If you and your neighbors can put a stop to it, you should do so. If the guy is a gun-wielding nut case that is capable of taking out the whole neighborhood, than the best you can do is refuse to have anything to do with him and perhaps get word to his wife that maybe she should stab him in his sleep.
I hope I haven’t lost everybody with this analogy. My whole point in all these posts is that if we want to be consistent in our policy lets start with a good one, right now. Being consistent with kowtowing to the Chinese and ignoring the plight of the oppressed doesn’t appeal to me.
I was listening to the CBC last Friday night and they were interviewing Noam Chomsky, who brought up some interesting points, the central one being that the situation WAS bad for the ethnic Albanians before the military intervention, but that NATO had three choices: make it better, do nothing, or make it worse. Having been unable to make it better (and to give credit where credit is due, I believe they did try), they chose military strikes against Milosovic, knowing full well that he would be unable to strike back directly, and would therefore step up actions against the Albanians, making their situation worse.
Chomsky stated that to do nothing would have been more humanitarian than to make it worse, as NATO has done. His point was that despite what the media keeps telling us, this is not a humanitarian mission. It sells better as such, but it’s not. It is a military exercise designed to bring a specific kind of stability to a region that currently has a system of government opposed to the ideals of NATO.
I don’t know that there’s anything wrong with this, necessarily. I agree with Chomsky’s assessment, but I think that arguing against the operation is a bit like sticking one finger in a dam with a thousand holes. NATO/US military solutions and imposed (liberated) systems of government will probably become more frequent if this succeeds, which it probably will. In terms of global peace and stability, worse things could happen. In many ways it sucks, certainly for the Kosovars, and I don’t think we’re getting the whole picture from the media by any means, but the situation has an air of inevitability about it. I don’t think there’s a power left in the world that can match NATO if it wants to do stuff like this, especially since the media serves the interests of NATO with its “humanitarian” spin keeping the general populations of NATO member countries from kicking up too big of a stink. Not enough people believe the alternative media for it to make a difference.
I think the arguments really boil down to “do the ends justify the means?” Reluctantly, because I have no love for the US or its system of government, I’d have to say yes.
Just a quibble. Isn’t your gripe with Canada and its system of government. Canada is free to leave NATO any time it wants, but as far as I can tell it is one of the biggest boosters for the war. If we’re the evil empire to the south, you’re the obsequious toady to the north. It’s time for the other NATO members to share the responsibility (or blame, if you’re incline). If we can’t tell you what to put on your French Toast we damned well don’t have the power to tell you that you have to go to war!
Sorry, Eris. It’s a defence mechanism. I have these battles with my British wife all the time.
Hey, no worries. Rant all you want. I just reserve the right to disagree with you, although in this case, I can’t really. I said US because NATO is led by the US. Canada is as much to blame as the rest of the NATO countries, including Britain.
As far as obsequious toadies go, yeah, I think I have to grant that one too. As a capitalist country we have no other choice, although it galls me to admit such a thing to a Yank such as yourself. My nationalistic tendencies go as far as beer, food, scenery and health care. Slam our government all you want; I’ll help, but I’ll slam yours too. They’re all corrupt and they all pander to corporate dollars to some extent.
I have to live on the planet, but I don’t have to like it. And just for the record, I’m not anti-capitalist really, either. I guess at this stage I’m just basically misanthropic generally. Humans suck. Individually, we’re mostly ok, but as a group, we’re immature, selfish and just not very nice. And no, I don’t particularly believe in democracy either.
Just another thought, though - according to the news this morning, Clinton’s asked for another 6 billion from Congress for the war effort. Who’s getting that money, in the end?
If we’re going to adopt the UN circumventing policy of “you’re bein’ bad to somebody, here we come!” on an equilateral basis we need to pump up our military budget by (what?) 1200%? Of course, the equilateral basis will not be an option at first, so we must be selective…
Agree with you again, PapaBear. Policy often lags far behind the need for action. Just wish we could develop some definitions now.
What I was getting at is that we are becoming the policemen of the world (not alone, so far with NATO and, in the case of Iraq, the UN). I just think we should accept that fact and set down the ground rules and stop shilly-shallying about “Yugoslavia was the start of WWI, therefore…” and all that crap. It is a transparent excuse. If we are gonna do it, let’s do it, but have some rational backup. Rwanda not excepted, as you pointed out.
(Aside to Eris–normally I find these kinds of jokes tremendous relief from bad situation. Didn’t work this time. Am I getting too caught up in these peoples plight? Prob so–any odds that if the situation were reversed, the Albanians would do just as bad to the Serbs? Or have?)
I’d like to say that many folks support engagement with China because they realize that wealth is a liberating experience. I belive that a wealthier China will be a better place. Freedom ain’t always “nothing left to lose” sometimes its an education or a dream and those often require lucre.
If you want to have an interesting experience, get ICQ ver.99a and do a White Pages Search for English-speaking people in Belgrade. The state-run media has them hopelessly brainwashed. They keep saying the most looney stuff, mostly to the effect of: “NATO hates Serbs and has decided the Kosovars were more worthy of living in Serbia than Serbs are”. And they send you all kinds of crazy links full of oddball pro-Serb propaganda to support their position. Overall, politics tends to be a sore subject.
Why did we ever go in there?These people were just practicing traditional Balkan population control. If they don’t go tribal every so often, there will be overpopulation.
Somehow I’ve lost the separate topic about the Russians.Anyway, the Russians are eager to have their troops participate.With free supplies of course.And hopefully as long as possible.This way they don’t have to feed and supply those troops at home.