Conflict Resolution 2: Kosovo
By: The Essayist | 01May1999
|
I keep thinking about one of those heartbreaking public service messages I saw on television. The subject is domestic violence. The scene is a little boy sitting on the stairs listening to his father verbally and then physically abuse his mother. I don't remember the message exactly, but it communicates that the boy is helpless. There's nothing he can do to alleviate his situation. But if you, the viewer, knew about it, would you do something about it?
It's fucking heart-wrenching -- but more than that, it makes me angry -- as, I'm sure, was the intention of the producers. "Yes, I have," I say silently -- and maybe aloud too. (Although I never catch myself at it, I'm certain that I talk back to the television set once in a while, like some elderly shut-in without any other opportunity for human interaction.) Yes I certainly have -- but those are other stories for another time, maybe. In similar circumstances, I expect to do it again because that is the kind of person I am. It sickens me that responsibility -- the willingness to alleviate suffering -- has reached such a low that it has become necessary to broadcast commercials reminding people that it's not only OK, but a moral obligation to react to the abuse of the weak and innocent. When hearing about someone beating their kids or spouse, where are the voices that argue that interfering would be wrong? Although a few might tell themselves that as a sort of self-justification for their lack of motivation, when the guy down the street is slapping around his wife or kids, you never hear anybody actually vocalize "it's not our business" or arguing for the self-determination of the household.
NATO decided to bomb the shit out of Yugoslavia. In case you haven't heard, NATO doesn't have the legal authority to do this. This action violates traditional standards of international law and NATO policy. The sovereignty of nations is one of the cardinal principles of the international order; to wit, foreign powers were not allowed to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries. Kosovo is a province of Yugoslavia. I call to your attention that NATO didn't ask for the blessing of the United Nations either; there was a big possibility that they wouldn't have gotten it. But genocide was going on, so NATO went ahead anyway. It may have begun from a moral premise, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's legal -- in case that's important to you. NATO's intentions included convincing neighbor Slobodan to quit his policy of ethnic cleansing. It hasn't worked; in fact, his abuses have gotten worse. At the same time, we've pissed off and united a lot of Serbians that weren't necessarily in love with the son-of-a-bitch in the first place.
Question: How does the United States get involved in these kinds of fuck-ups?
Why would Billy-Jeff say this? Because President Bill Clinton is no leader, as he has proved time and again. Brother Bill couldn't lead a Baptist congregation in singing "The Old Rugged Cross". To Clinton, being presidential means letting a large-breasted intern blow you while discussing business on the phone. To Clinton, being a leader means giving feel-good speeches, the content of which is determined by the latest polls. That's why the wanker said "no ground troops". He perceived that an up close and personal war might be unpopular. It is more important to him to be popular than it is to be discreet. By what stretch of language does the word 'leader' refer to someone who makes ALL policy decisions on the basis of perceptions of popularity? What the U.S. is doing in Yugoslavia is not a war, since Congress hasn't declared one -- nor will they. Few who have what it takes to get elected these days are willing to take the kind of responsibility necessary to actually declare a war. Instead, they rely on the power delegated by Congress to meet U.S. treaty obligations and let the president make these decisions. If it comes out OK, members of Congress can pretend they were with him all along. If it turns into a nasty clusterfuck, they can distance themselves from the president. Non-wars have been the stock in trade of the United States since 1945, when the Japanese surrendered on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay. Yet, only an idiot would blissfully pretend that we've had much peace since that day. Certainly, our borders haven't been in much danger of military invasion during the past fifty-four years, nevertheless, troops have been sent to kill and die. Sometimes the citizens supported these troops -- as during the Gulf War. (See, we even call them wars.) Sometimes many citizens did not -- as during our Vietnam experience. Not once since 1945 has the country as an institution supported those who were sent overseas to kill or be killed, by legal authority as determined by Congress. I don't much care for this situation, but I can see its necessity, given the nature of politics. Peace is preferable of course, but sometimes it becomes necessary to do something decisive about the monstrous neighbor down the block. If it's just a matter of spanking a few Tripolitan pirates, and if a few ships and cannon can take care of the problem without getting the whole country too worked up about it, the Commander-in-Chief should take charge. Too bad our C-in-C is such a goddamn moron about military affairs.
So NATO started bombing military installations, and that did not change Milosevic's mind. This action is akin to hurling flaming dogshit clumps at the abusive neighbor's porch in the middle of the night. If this doesn't convince him to stop slapping his family around, what do you do next? I will state one assumption -- with which you may or may not agree -- for purposes of this discussion: It is a moral imperative to engage our abusive neighbor, by whatever means are necessary, to end the slaughter of innocent people. I'll restate the question from above: Given that diplomacy didn't work and no conflict has ever been won using air assets alone, what would be the next appropriate step? To minimize the risk to the victims you are trying to save -- and any other innocents who happen to be in the area -- you must get your hands dirty. You take on the risk yourself. You knock down the bastard's door, barge in with an axe handle and take care of the problem. You have to do precisely what Big Mouth in Washington said wouldn't happen. But neither the U.S. nor NATO has that kind of resolve. It becomes less important to minimize the risk to innocents, if that means the defender will have to take on more risk. NATO isn't up to taking that kind of responsibility, but they do have some really big bombs -- lots of them. Maybe if we throw even more and much larger flaming dogshit clumps from the street, we can get him to knock it off without becoming personally involved. Maybe we won't splatter the rest of the family -- those we are trying to save. Hopefully we won't burn down the whole house.
This situation has become entirely fucked. If Milosevic had believed, early on, that NATO was willing to do whatever was necessary to make him back down, diplomacy might have worked. It is impossible to know for sure, since he is such a festering tyrant. But now that he's just about finished "cleansing" Kosovo, he has a good chance of pulling it off. He can retain power over people who -- with every bomb that does "collateral damage" -- hate the U.S. and NATO a little bit more. On the other hand, given the military resources of NATO, if they just stick with the plan, they may be able to burn the entire country to the ground before Milosevic gives in. President Bill Clinton and the other leaders of NATO know better than any of us that only winners write history books. Only the losers stand before a tribunal to answer for atrocities against humanity and war crimes. |
Unfortunately, that is precisely one of the reactions that comes up when considering Yugoslavia and Slobodan Milosevic's "ethnic cleansing" of those of Albanian descent. After all, it appears to be necessary to tell people that it's correct to step in when domestic abuse happens. I suppose it shouldn't be beyond belief that some people lean towards isolationism, when considering the possibility of U.S. troops being sent to alleviate the horrendous conditions in Kosovo. It's almost understandable: one source of isolationism is that stink of fear that occurs when considering what to do about the abuser living down the block.
For one thing, the "Leader of the Free World", Bill Clinton, opened his big mouth right off the bat and informed Milosevic and the rest of the world that NATO will not be sending ground troops into the conflict. Now that's real bright! Imagine walking into a boxing ring and announcing that no matter what happens, you won't be throwing any punches with your right hand.
Slobodan -- apparently believing that Bill had some credibility -- took him at his word, and decided that the easiest way to end it and come out a winner would be to make the purge of ethnic Albanians a fait accompli as quickly as possible. After all, if you are a murderous lunatic whom will do anything to stay in power (as Milosevic has proved), you focus on your objective -- regardless of the body count.
So NATO started bombing non-military targets. NATO is now maiming and killing the innocent along with the guilty, by insistently pursuing an air war that -- what it lacks in precision and justice -- it makes up for in scale. By doing so, NATO has becoming damn near as evil as Slobodan. The grave of a "cleansed" Albanian pushes up the same species of flora as does that of a Serbian television technician doing his/her job at an unpropitious moment. Practically every day now, a NATO spokesperson is on television apologizing for bombing a residential area. "Sorry about that, folks. That was meant for the pharmaceutical factory next door or the Yugo plant across the street."
| Be informed when new content is added. | Email a Link to this page. | Email the SOB who publishes this. |