-Caveat Lector-

Bombin' Bill going mano a mano against Sadistic Slobo: we like that

By Barbara Ehrenreich
Thursday April 8, 1999


A round of applause, please, for the Serbian people. No matter how often
they're pounded with bombs and told their leader is 'Hitler' incarnate, none
of them seems to be launching impeachment proceedings. Instead, they mock us
on CNN by holding up placards saying: 'Sorry, we didn't know it [the downed
US plane] was invisible.' Or they gather in Belgrade for patriotic rock
concerts featuring some of the very same performers who, only three years
ago, were busily rocking against Milosevic.
In an instructive contrast to Nato, which fights only when the weather is
agreeable and preferably after all anti-aircraft installations have been
demolished - the Serb civilians even don bulls-eyes and form human chains
over vulnerable bridges.

Confronted with this extraordinary surge of Serbian solidarity, Nato
spokesman Jamie Shea opined that they'll get over it soon enough. A follow-up
question, if you don't mind, Mr Shea: if the Serbs are still smarting from
their defeat at the battle of Kosovo more than 600 years ago, what makes you
think they're going to forget the bombings of Belgrade, Novi Sad and
Aleksinac in a couple of weeks?

The historical analogies are far from encouraging. When the Luftwaffe bombed
London, you may recall that the English failed to rise up against Winston
Churchill. Similarly, the obsessive bombing of Iraq by the United States has
yet to produce a mighty pro-democracy, anti-Saddam, movement on the ground.

In fact, persecution - real or perceived - is the very seedbed of nationalist
enthusiasm. Observe how the Australians still get misty-eyed over the battle
of Gallipoli, at which they were soundly whipped.

You don't have to read Serbo-Croatian to understand what the Serb rockers and
demonstrators are trying to tell us: namely, that there's more than one
person in Serbia. But the Nato assault has so far been conducted against a
single individual, just as the US likes to imagine that Iraq contains only
one occupant, Saddam Hussein.

It's the one-man theory of the nation state, and its effect is to transform
war into an S&M psychodrama: now that we've degraded 'his' infrastructure and
knocked out 'his' supply lines, will he finally break? Will he cry uncle?

No one in Nato seems to have realised that when Milosevic looks out of his
window, he doesn't just see mangled bridges and smashed ministries, he sees
the same militant crowds that we do.

Imagine the warm feeling it must give him to know that this time the crowds
aren't calling for him to be ousted, they're hailing him as the saviour of
his country.

The one-man theory of the nation state undoubtedly has its charms. For one
thing, it eliminates the psychological imponderable that is nationalism,
which can be ignored while we concentrate on the individual psychopathology
of a Slobodan or a Saddam. It furthermore eases any guilt occasioned by
civilian casualties, since those civilians never fully existed in the first
place.

Finally, it restores the lost glories of the days of individual combat, when
brave men rode out on horseback to joust with the other side's warrior
heroes, while the foot soldiers fell back in awe. Which would you rather
watch on TV: Nato vs the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, or Bombin' Bill
going mano a mano against the Sadistic Slobo?

The alternative, multi-person, theory of the state is not only conceptually
more challenging, it would require an entirely different approach to
conflict. You'd start, not with bombs, but with an information blitz, aimed
at an entire population.

If, for example, the Serb people think the Kosovans are fleeing Nato bombs,
not Serbian forces, why not deluge them with faxes and e-mails? Maybe an
information war wouldn't work, but with a literate, PC-possessing population,
there's no excuse for not giving it a try.

Next, you'd bend over backwards not to injure a single Serbian civilian, even
if this means passing on a tempting downtown target or two. If peace is the
aim, then the peacekeeper's rule should be the same as the medical
professional's: first, do no harm.

If all this sounds disgustingly wimpy, bear in mind that the current Nato
strategy seems designed to turn the children in Belgrade bomb shelters into
tomorrow's international terrorist menace.

In the end, of course, we bomb because bombing is what we know how to do. But
here another historical analogy may apply: in the Hundred Years war, the
French knights tried to battle English longbowmen by charging them, on
horseback, in the usual knightly fashion.

Again and again - at Crecy and through Agincourt - the French knights charged
very nicely indeed, and were duly slaughtered by English arrows. So yes, Nato
does a commendable job of bombing. Now let's see it try to accomplish
something useful.

• Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of Blood Rites: Origins And History Of The
Passion Of War, published by Virgo

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to