"Marques, Jorge" wrote:
> Matt Hill wrote:

> > I also suspect hidden intentions.  But if genocide or
> > near-genocide goes
> > on despite NATO's action, the world will see NATO as a
> > failure.  NATO is
> > mostly (or entirely) composed of liberal democracies.  To some extent
> > Western leaders will have to answer to their populations.
>
> I disagree. And this is where previous examples are useful.
> Did Western leaders answer to their populations for Vietnam?

Yes, sort of.  I wasn't alive then, but clearly elites in
the West did overstep their bounds.  They asked the
population to accept unreasonable demands, and the people
responded with mass protests and civil unrest.  That's why
we have the "Vietnam Syndrome."  Elites see the Vietnam
Syndrome, the unwillingness of the people to go along with
their crusades of destruction, as a horrible disease.

> East Timor? Guatemala? El Salvador? And the list goes on.

Of course, but there are important differences between US
activity in El Salvador (for example) and Vietnam.  After we
were afflicted with the dreaded Vietnam Syndrome, our
venerable leaders had to turn to covert action, proxy wars,
and outright state terrorism to get what they want.  It used
to be that they could just start a war and have the people
go along with it.

The US could have started another all-out war in Angola for
example--after all, Cuba had thousands of troops there
fighting for the Marxist government.  The US, however,
resorted to supporting a proxy war through UNITA largely
because it didn't want to risk another Vietnam.

The existence of the Vietnam Syndrome is proof that elites
cannot do whatever they want in a liberal democracy.  People
will stand up to them.  This is the "crisis of democracy."

> I
> think you may underestimate the power of the state-media
> propaganda team. ...

I said Western leaders have to answer to their populations
_to_some_extent_.  It may not be very much, but they can
only hide so much.  If the West fucks up in Kosovo (even
more), then people will know it fucked up.  People are
already criticizing NATO action--not just leftists, but
writers in the Financial Times, the Economist, and other
elite propaganda sources have criticized the bombing.  The
bombing is causing political turmoil: in Germany, for
example, the Red-Green Coalition is stressing out about it.
So is France.  Relations between China and Russia are being
strained.  Many different people with many different views
are watching this war, and if it is a total humanitarian
disaster they will talk about it.  NATO has an incentive to
resolve the issue, because NATO thinks it needs credibility.

> > > But if you were to decouple NATO's involvement, as in (2)
> > > above, I agree that that the crisis needs to be dealt with.
> > > But at the same time, I believe NATO (or at least the US/UK
> > > foreign policy controlling the NATO agenda)is part of the
> > > problem and a large reason for the escalation in the crisis.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > My argument here is that, under certain circumstances, we
> > could support
> > US/NATO military action.  I do not think this is one of those
> > circumstances, but it's a close call.  There is evidence that
> > Milosevic
> > was planning to cleanse Kosovo anyway.
>
> There is also evidence that he was willing to restore some
> autonomy and accept a UN peacekeeping force in Kosovo. What
> the Serbians were not prepared to accept was a NATO
> occupation force of the whole of Yugoslavia. I don't know if
> you have seen the full text of the Rambouillet agreement or
> not, but the threw these little morsels into Appendix B:

[snipped text of agreement]

Thanks. That is one of the reasons I am not supporting the
bombing.  There may have been diplomatic options the US
simply ignored.

>
> Given that the bombing is based on the Serbs refusing to
> accept this agreement, and one of the stated (putative)
> goals of the bombing is to force Milosevic to sign this
> agreement, I can't imagine how I could possibly support this
> bombing.

Well, the main stated goal I was thinking of was to fix the
humanitarian crisis.  If force is the only way to do so, I
support force.  However it doesn't seem as though force is
the only option, and so far force seems to have made things
worse, as predicted by the US military.

> > My support for Western intervention (in general) is
> > contingent on three
> > factors:
> >
> > 1. The putative goal is good.
> >
> > 2. There is reason to think the West will put an honest effort
> > into doing achieving the putative goal.
> >
> > 3. There is a good chance the effort will succeed. (We calculate the
> > chance based on what has been done up to the present and what
> > the future
> > looks like).
> >
> > Concerning Kosovo I think the intervention succeeds on (1) and (2) but
> > not on (3), for reasons I think I've already gone into.
> >
> > Nevertheless, we should at least be willing to offer
> > conditional support
> > to the West (if only verbal), regardless of its real agenda.  The
> > question is what those conditions are.  Obviously a lot of us
> > disagree,
> > so we are having heated discussions on these lists.
> >
> > And as you can see I've revised my "framework" after only one
> > day.  With
> > some luck, though, we can resolve some issues rather than misrepresent
> > one another.
> >
>
> Yes, you have revised it, and I agree with (1), the goal
> itself. I still don't believe it is or has ever been NATO's
> goal, but I agree with the goal. I don't agree with (2)
> based on the way the Rambouillet "agreement" was
> "negotiated", the terms in the agreement and the ultimatums
> issued relating to the agreement. I don't believe NATO/US/UK
> put in an honest effort. I don't believe they really gave
> diplomacy a chance. And again, I don't agree with (3).

All right, we pretty much agree, except on (2).  NATO says
it intervenes on humanitarian grounds, so it will be judged
by whether it improves or worsens the humanitarian
situation.  If NATO withdraws or succeeds at the expense of
hundreds of thousands of lives, the mission will be
perceived as a failure.  It has an incentive to succeed,
because at this time it needs to justify its existence with
the loss of the Soviet Union.  There is enough international
criticism and awareness of Kosovo to give NATO a powerful
incentive to do what it says it is going to do.

Unfortunately NATO has done everything wrong so far.  If it
actually did something right, it would be reasonable to
support the US of force against a fascist government that
mass murders its citizens.