Max,
I've been on your case about this before, but don't
you think that we can get this straight, please? Those
who are being attacked, displaced, cleansed, etc.
in Kosovo-Metohija, are Albanian Kosovars. Many of
them are NOT Muslims, with some being Catholics
(like that well known Albanian, Mother Teresa) and some
are Orthodox. We have seen reports that the Serbs torched
the Catholic cathedral in Pec. I would hope that you are as
concerned about the non-Muslim Albanians as you are
about the Muslim ones.
I realize that you were very moved by that Muslim demo
you attended in Lafayette Square. But, please, let's not
make an ugly situation worse, by turning an ethnic conflict
into a Holy War, which there are certainly people out there
trying to make it, on both sides.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 11:17 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:5606] RE: Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position
on Kosovo
>> > Bombing is not immoral.
>>
>> The burden of proof is on you to show this. Lets have some
>reasons. I take it as a starting point (i.e.self-evident) that
>peace is everywhere and always preferable to war. >
>
>I've acknowledged that those who command the bombers are not
>acting out of moral precepts.
>
>Neither you nor I have anything to do with this, however. The
>bombing will persist regardless of what we do, especially if we
>hold more to your view of U.S. democracy than mine.
>
>The more pertinent question for us is what should we do? To me
>the greater human emergency is the Muslims, not the Serbs.
>Muslims are suffering more in aggregate and individually than
>Serbs. My starting point and priority is how to effect the
>rescue of Muslims. I further think that such a rescue would
>preclude most of the current threat to innocent Serbs.
>
>How to do it? Not, I would say, by focusing protest against NATO
>bombing, which on this list and LBO often entails
>"pogrom-denial," and in the real world is typically wound up with
>isolationism. The case for the Muslims argues against
>ineffectual bombing (which incidentally is destroying the land to
>which the Muslims would like to return), and for peace-keeping
>via ground troops.
>
>The no bombing/no genocide line has the merit of foregoing
>callousness towards Muslims, but otherwise the 'no genocide'
>component is meaningless. Pacifism here is meaningless as well.
>Sometimes you have to pick a side.
>
>> > People who send bombers can be.
>>
>> Anybody can be immoral. What theory of morality are you working
>with? What the hell, lets get into some philosophy. >>
>
>I'd really rather not. I tried to read Hegel a few times and
>always dozed off after about 20 pages.
>
>> What is it for an agent to be moral? Acting in accordance with
>a categorical imperative(i.e. rules or maxims)? Acting so as to
>maximize the total amount of happiness in a given society? Acting
>rationally? Acting out of self-interest (any libertarians out
>there?) Pacifists argue that any initiation of the use of force
>is immoral because it violates someone elses
>property right of self-ownership. Self-ownership is thorny issue
>for Marxists, but that's another story. Some Marxists use it
>defend abortion ( anti-abortion laws are wrong because they
>violate self-ownership) while they must abandon self-ownership to
>defend a certain interpretation of
>capitalist exploitation. >
>
>I'll leave the abstract construction to others with the expertise
>and inclination. I'd rather simplify: HOW TO PROTECT INNOCENT
>MUSLIMS IN KOSOVA? That's my preferred moral question of the
>day.
>
>> > 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.
>>
>
>>From context, it should be clear I meant 'anything positive.'
>
>> Bombing does a lot of things like destroy economies and
>property, kill people, destroy lives and destroy ecosystems. In
>econospeak, NATO views these ,as well as the hundreds of
>thousands of *Muslims* in Iraq starving to death because of US
>policy, as negative externalities. A price worth
>paying. Human life is simply an externality. >
>
>That's Nato. I'm not Nato, and neither is Nathan.
>
>> > 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. >
>
>> There was no mass murder before the bombing and ,what evidence
>there is, shows no mass murder after the bombing. >
>
>This is total bullshit, as some informed anti-bombers have
>attested. Since Louis didn't answer, I'll throw his question to
>you: if no independent journalists are permitted to investigate
>atrocities in Kosova, and since both refugees and Serbs are
>biased, from what source would you accept as legitimate a report
>of atrocities? If none, haven't you precluded such information
>on spurious, a priori grounds?
>
>> > Those who refuse to condemn the bombing altogether are not
>immoral if they believe that some bombing is consistent with
>further objectives -- saving Kosova. >
>
>> We have to bomb Kosovo to save it.
>
>I've made clear that the all-bombing strategy is no good, so this
>cliche cuts no ice.
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Quite rational, quite immoral by any standard of morality.
>
>Well this was in response to Devine and Kruse, who questioned the
>rationality of it.
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Ground troops will escalate the war in Kosovo and possibly the
>whole region. >
>
>If sending in troops to protect Muslims and secure Kosova is
>escalation, that's what we need. Nor do I see any big regional
>threat. Russia's hostility is premised on Nato taking over
>Serbia, but it is not necessary to take over Serbia to secure
>Kosova. Russia's military right now is a joke, and in no danger
>of being anything more for quite some time.
>
>> This will lead to more death and destruction.
>
>I thought you were some kind of Leninist. What's your problem
>with death and destruction?
>
>> The effect of NATO's actions over the past few weeks has been
>the exact opposite of what it intended. (assuming that NATO
>intended to do good viz. save Kosovo, its people, ensure
>stability in the region and weaken Milosevic). >
>
>Quite true.
>
>> It follows that if NATO does the exact opposite of what it is
>doing now ( i.e. stops bombing and starts fair negotiations) it
>will have the effect that NATO intended when it first started the
>bombing. Give peace a chance!>
>
>No, that doesn't follow one tiny bit. A cessation of all bombing
>and an invitation to negotiation simply affords Milo & Co. the
>opportunity to do what they like with Kosova at their leisure.
>It's the Chamberlain solution.
>
>> No, but the same holds for NATO vis a vis Serbia. Thus NATO has
>no right to destroy Serbia because it elected Milosevic. >>
>
>That's not why Nato is "destroying" (sic) Serbia.
>
>> BTW, I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but Milosevic is quite
>moderate compared to his right wing nationalist competitors. >>
>
>Thank god for small favors.
>
>> Just for the record, I have no sympathy for Milosevic or his
>government. If the Serbian masses are in a position to overthrow
>him or vote him
>out, they should do it. >
>
>But they aren't, so this is meaningless to the well-being of
>Kosovars.
>
>> > 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. >
>
>> If it is a national liberation struggle ,what right does NATO
>have under
>international law or any other criteria, to intervene? >
>
>I really don't care. If Milo has the "right" to liquidate
>Muslims, then I don't care whether or not anybody else has the
>"right" to stop him. All I care about is that somebody do so.
>The UN is dysfunctional in this regard, since there are too many
>countries (China and Russia, in particular) with a malignant
>interest in vetoing any serious effort to support
>self-determination for an oppressed national group. Why is
>obvious.
>
>"Is NATO the KLA's airforce? Should it be? Isn't this a bad
>precendent?
>NATO can be the airforce for any guerrilla group it decides? Bomb
>any
>government it disagrees with? Pretexts can always be invented.
>Its sign of weakness on the Left when NATO can get away with
>anything it wants to. >
>
>Every case will stand or fall on its merits. This happens to be
>one instance where Nato's case -- given a different prosecution
>of the war -- could be pretty good.
>
>mbs
>
>
