On Kosovo

[Zuni]

This comes from an interview with a Kosovar journalist named Viryt Gacaferi as recorded by Kira Brenner in the book 'The New Killing Fields: Massacre and the politics of Intervention'. (I recommend this book wholeheartedly)
Gacaferi believed that the NATO bombing campaign was the main reason that Kosovo was spared destruction in 1999. He felt whatever damage done by the bombs paled in comparison to what they would have faced if the Serbs had not been stopped. When the bombing campaign started, he watched on rooftops in Pristina cheering and according to him 'never heard one Kosovar complain about NATO.'
In Pristina in 2000 you could still find pictures of Clinton, Madelaine Albright, Tony Blair, Wesley Clark and other leaders who took on the Serbs.


In my opinion, the Serbs were intending to ethnically cleanse Kosovo, a plan that had began when Serbian nationalism and Milosevic came to power. Milosevic even told Wes Clark that he intended to do to Kosovo what the communists did to the city of Drenica in 1946---kill everyone they could find. Sure they might have waited because of the war in Croatia and Bosnia, but by 1999 the Serbs were already begginning to 'ethnically cleanse' Kosovo.

In my opinion, the Kosovo war stopped a genocidal campaign. It had been brewing, and Kosovo was spared the fate of Bosnia, which suffered horribly until the Dayton accords in 1995 ended much of the killing.
I do not know what the particulars of the Rambouillet negotiations are, but I do not think they would have succeeded. NATO and the Serbs both had very divergent agendas, and I do not think Milosevic would have ever allowed NATO peacekeepers into Greater Serbia.
In the end, the bombing did help force Milosevic out of power, got the Serb military and paramilitary death squads out of Kosovo, and brought the Un in to help reconstruct the Balkans as democracies.

Kosovo was the first time the major powers ever went to war to stop genocide before it happens. Many People who decry the Kosovo campaign would probably do the same if we had intervened in Rwanda in April 1994 to stop the genocide before it happens. These people would never believe the fastest, most brutal campaign of genocide ever seen would have erupted in Rwanda if it had not been allowed to happen. We would be the imperialists, the Interahamwe would be 'freedom fighters' against foreign imperialism instead of mass killing thugs who set out to exterminate their neighbors and nearly succeeding.

This kind of 'monday morning' quarterbacking about 'humanitarian intervention' makes it much harder for western states to prevent genocide. Would you rather see foreign powers intervene to stop mass killings, or are you too concerned about civilian casualties and being called an imperialist. In my opinion, civilian casualties will happen no matter what in this kind of conflict, but military intervention might save hundreds of thousands of lives even if there is some civilians killed. As for being called an imperialist, that is no big deal. If we had done something about Rwanda, at least the Tutsis would have supported us.

[TheUnknownPoster]

1. So were you for the invasion of Iraq

On humanitarian grounds?

[zbdent]

2. Well, I might have been for the war in Iraq, if it had taken

place shortly after all the reports of the human rights abuses were reported to the world, circa 1988, 1989. You know, back when it was actually happening, just like the fact that the ethnic cleansing was ongoing AT THE TIME RIGHT BEFORE CLINTON started trying to oust Milosovic.

Apparently, the conservatives/right-wingers/Republicans only decided that human rights counted when the price of oil was high, Repubs controlled the House, Senate, and White House (oh, hell, and the Supreme Court), and we had a terrorist attack which eclipsed the Oklahoma City bombing.

Most likely, (and including CitizenSoldier.org, or whatever), the same people who were screaming for Saddam's ouster due to "gassing his own people and the rape rooms" were denouncing Clinton for stopping similar human rights violations when there was no "national interest" in getting involved (remember, only people were being threatened, not oil interests, of which Kosovo had none).

[Zuni]

4. Or when the acclerated killing started after the Gulf War

in 1991. That was saddam's bloodiest campaign as leader. At least 300,000 Iraqis were killed or dissappered when the US and UN forces were right next door, sitting pretty and afraid to do anything. The road to Baghdad was open---Saddam's army was a wreck and mostly shooting civilians now. We peomised the Shias and Kurds aid and it never came.
We could have done some good for Iraq if we had just finished the job we started in 1991.

[Zuni]

3. no

We had no legal mandate whatsoever, there was no threat to declare war, most of our best allies were against it, the excessive cost was not good either, the nature of the region is very volatile and this could potentially be destabilizing, we burned our bridges badly as well---we made it harded to be credible if their is a real major collective security issue that we have to deal with on a moment's notice, the people in Iraq were not in immediate danger of renewed campaigns of genocide like happened in the late 80s or in the months after the Gulf War. Most dangerous of all, Iraq could potentially be a major quagmire, especially if the thin layers of national unity come off dissident groups like Kurds, Marsh Arabs, Islamists, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Shia and led to a civil war. The occupation is bad enough.

The main reason I opposed this war was that Bush was CinC, and I am sure he will truly fu** up everything in the Middle East and pretty much everything he touches.
I also thought we should have waited and used diplomacy and other tools to accomplish our goals.


Do not get me wrong. I am happy someone took up Saddam. I just think it would be better if the internationl community used means to empower the Iraqis to take care of him themselves. In the end, I think if maybe we had a leader other than Bush their might have been a coherent strategy to deal with Saddam without so damaging our country. But the fact that Saddam is no longer killing and torturing is the only thing that is good that has come out of this fiasco so far.

[Goldmund]

5. Dude, with all due respect...

...I just don't think you're familiar enough with the situation as it happened to form a competent opinion. I really don't mean this as an insult -- hear me out:

By your own admission, you don't "know the particulars of Rambouillet.". Well, it's not so hard to Google it, is it? One of the particulars was that NATO troups would have unimpeded access to all of Serbian territory, not just Kosovo. In other words, it was _designed_ in such a way to be unacceptable to the Serbs.

Next, you say " I do not think Milosevic would have ever allowed NATO peacekeepers into Greater Serbia."

The dubious characterization of fully-armed NATO troops as "peacekeepers" aside -- ahat is this "Greater Serbia" you speak of? The myth of Greater Serbia, which Milosevic, of course, indulged in, had died with the wars in Bosnia and Croatia. Kosovo isn't a part of any "greater serbia" -- it has always been territorially a part of Serbia, since it won its independence from the Turks after the 1828 uprising. And before the Turks even came, the medieval Serbian state was conceived on that territory.

Next "Kosovo was the first time the major powers ever went to war to stop genocide before it happens". Do you know the ethnic composition of Kosovo? It is over 90% Albanian. About 2 million people. Wars in former Yugoslavia were very vicious and bloody, but this was no Rwanda. Actually, again, Google it up -- in the year before NATO intervention there were a few thousand dead Albanians. Also, a number of dead Serb civilians as well -- both groups were acting savagely, and both had dreams of "ethnic cleansing". Serbian army's official role was to protect Serbian territory from armed insurgencies (would US National Guard stand still if a bunch of militiamen from montana attacked its barracks day in and day out) -- although, admittedly, it did so in many cases without any regard for laws and customs of war. The KLA was classified by the US as a terrorist organization, and it was no better than Serbian army at avoiding civilian casualties. Modus operandi for both sides was to actually cause civilian casualties as a strategy. The KLA also has undisputable ties with drug traffickers and international crime.

This isn't to excuse or justify Milosevic -- he was undoubtedly a tyrant and a butcher. But to buy this line about NATO's motives were to stop genocide "before it happens" (note the birth of the preemption doctrine) is just naive.

My personal theory is that the whole point of the intervention was to prevent a muslim state from forming in Europe. Had Kosovar Albanians managed to win independence from the Serbs (Milosevic had already lost every single conflict he started or participated in), Kosovo would have likely become an islamic state. The only two majority Islamic entities in Europe -- the Muslim part of Bosnia, and Kosovo -- are as a result of NATO's interventions in the 90s, now practically ruled by NATO troops. That's the end result. Serbia is now back to relative prosperity, as is the Serbian part of Bosnia; they are both self-ruled. Kosovo's still officially under Serbia's jurisdiction, and any nominal "autonomy" it has is purely symbollic, since it is under NATO's fist.

[Zuni]

6. I do know that about Rambouillet

I am well aware that NATO wanted peacekeepers on Serbian territory, not just kosovo. I do not think the Serbs would have accepted NATO forces in Kosovo either.(After thinking about the situation, This might have been nessecary to prevent infiltration by various paramilitaries and to prevent a South Vietnam situation from forming from constant infiltration)
I am no expert on Rambouillet or the Balkans. But I do know that the Serbs were gearing up for a campaign of terror that would have dwarfed their campaign in Bosnia. Before the NATO attack, contrary to what many people on this board say, the Serbs had already burned many villages and sent at least 100,000 Albanians either into the Mountains or across the borders.

I make no apology for the often criminal activity of the KLA. They even had foreign islamists from the ME, Chechnya and Al Quaeda fighting with them. They are still involved in terrorist activity.
But in retrospect, the racist laws and brutality of the Serbs in the Kosovo province made certain that groups like the KLA would form.

The Balkans have a dark history. From the wars with the Turks, Austria Hungary, to WWII where over 2 million Yugoslavs died---there is a very real legacy of ethnic violence, religious persecution and instability. The Croatian Ustashe in WWII were far worse than even the Bosnian Serb paramilitaries that raped Bosnia a decade ago.

It is my belief that to end the outbreak of violence and ethnic cleansing that broke out in the 1990s, it was nessecary for the world powers to take a stand. If only they had only done so earlier.
The worst part is that Rwanda went unchecked until almost a million were massacred. East Timor wasn't aided until the Paramilitaries practically burned the whole country. The Iraqis weren't given help in 1991 when Saddam went on a rampage that left 300,000 dead, all the while US and UN forces sat idly by.