At 12:34 AM 4/20/99 -0700, Max Sawicky wrote: >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.) That is probably the most convincing explanation of the NATO behavior. "Ritualism in the face of uncertainty" has been frequently evoked by organizational behavior theorists - and that explanation seems to be th eonly one that fits the apparent madness of the NATO policy (I've been effectively persuaded that no significant economic or politcal self-interests are at stake). But that is really a bad news. Since military and political egos are at stake and few "reality checks" exist - the current course of action will escalate until a major disaster brings them into a halt. That means that your conclusion > >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. is a non-sequitur. Things can get much much worse, perhaps not for Kosovars (since they've already hit the rock bottom), but for other peoples in the region. Regards, Wojtek PS. Max, I appreciate your sense of humor in the face of this madness. It keeps me from sinking into depression.
