One more before bedtime: First, I don't think the DSA statement was all that great, though I'd encourage them to pursue the line they are taking. > . . . > For me, one line is particularly telling: > > >[...] To really protect citizens and refugees, realistically and regrettably we will have to put soldiers in harm's way.> > Two points: > > First: Who are we? Only someone from deep inside the imperium, with a > strong sense of _belonging_ in it and to it, could pen such a line. Au contraire, usage of "we" is pretty common. One might say that only someone extremely alienated would be irked by it. A perfect example would be Louis' post the other day, noted approvingly by our own irrepressible militiaman Valis. > Second: What do you mean "we put". Why don't you "put" yourself? There are precedents: the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, some Witness for Peace and PBI work, etc. In the meantime -- while you money is still light years from your mouth -- don't go calling other people's numbers, goddamit.> This tendency to demand that people make sacrifices for putting forward ideas is regrettable. Whether they do or not has no bearing on the value of the ideas. The only basis for raising this is in response to obnoxious preachments to action, but neither Nathan nor anyone else was demanding that the anti-bombers "do something" to prove their good faith. I do think there is something to the issue of calling for military action in terms of compelling people who serve in the armed forces to fight in this theater, one where there is no U.S. national interest per se at issue. On one hand, they elected to serve. It's not as if the U.S. had abstained from military actions for the past thirty years. It is not true that the U.S. armed services are based on a "poverty draft." The military has the luxury of being more selective than that. You don't have to join the Army to eat (especially now). If you did, the Army (et al) probably wouldn't take you. On the other hand, it would be reasonable to call this a 'working class draft,' so the basic point remains. One response is that only volunteers should be sent over. If nobody wants to go, then there's no intervention. The only other solution to a working class draft is a full draft, though in that case by long experience we know the wealthy can stay clean, even if they serve. > Now that that's passed, are there any "Nathan Newmans" out there that can > answer Devine when he writes: > > >And as I've argued again and again ... the US/NATO is not making things better in Serbia, Kosova/o, Montenegro, Macedonia, or Albania. They are f*cking things up much more. It doesn't make sense tactically, strategically, politically, or morally. I knew Nathan Newman. I had lunch with Nathan Newman. Nathan Newman was a friend of mine, and I'm no Nathan Newman, but since he's gone you'll have to settle for me: NATO's cover story is that they thought a little bombing would turn Milo around straight-away. They did anticipate the possibility of him going ahead with his counter-insurgency and had no plan to counter it. That was stupid. They did not think he would go on quite the rampage he apparently has. I do not believe the rampage scenario was a desired outcome on NATO's part; it has given them, and the Clinton ADministration, an enormous black eye. They could not have wanted this to unfold the way it has. Bombing is not immoral. People who send bombers can be. Presently the people in question are immoral because they are using bombing as a political substitute for action that the NATO governments, especially the U.S., are too timid to propose and promote. In and of itself, bombing does not accomplish anything. Whether it makes things worse for Kosovars depends on what you think is actually going on in the province. If you think there is nothing but "normal" counter-insurgency, then the bombing makes things worse. If there is mass murder, then things can't get much worse. Those who refuse to condemn the bombing altogether are not immoral if they believe that some bombing is consistent with further objectives -- saving Kosova. I speculate that the Administration/Nato are of two minds about the bombing. One mind holds that the bombing and news of atrocities will prepare the public to accept a full-scale invasion. This makes some political sense, but it is craven and immoral: it sacrifices innocent Serbs to indulge the political cowardice of Western politicians. It also makes tactical sense; you pummel the Serbian military and economy and soften them up for the ground war. Again, not necessarily moral, but not irrational either. The other mind supports the Iraqi strategy -- just keep bombing till the cows come home. The Kosovars and Serb civilians are completely beside the point; it's about Nato being boss, not losing face, etc. Bankrupt in every way. (All the geopolitical scenarios about positioning against a resurgent Russia, NATO expansion, the war economy, the economic 'crisis' are such rubbish they are hardly worth disputing.) So sure, bombing isn't helping Kosovars. But at this point, a ceasefire might not help them either. You help them by protecting them, which means ground troops. In one sense I think all of us are going at this from a similar, top-down view, as if we were little secretaries of state in exile or something. The real focus should be Kosovars. The first principle is, self-determination for Kosova. As far as I can determine, both this list and LBO are Muslim-free zones. We seem to be utterly separated from the principal victims in this drama. As if we were discussing civil rights in the absence of any African-Americans. I really don't care how retrograde the nationalism of the Muslims may be, though I wouldn't take Louis' word on this for a second. The Serbs don't have the right to destroy them because their politics and culture offend some leftists. This isn't Afghanistan, where there was a choice of regimes -- Taliban versus communist. This is a national liberation struggle. Whether it's Taliban is irrelevant, because the Serbian regime has zero legitimacy from any sane left standpoint, vis-a-vis Kosova. mbs
