Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 16:56:13 -0500
From: Unka Bart <mendicant-AT-buddhist.com>
Subject: Re: The Anarchist Attitude To War


Aaron want his licks too...

>This makes absolutely no sense to me.  Is the word 'counterproductive' in
>your lexicon?

I already addressed that in my note to Dave Hayman.  Do write and let me
know if the answer remains ambiguous...

>Any action is worse than no action precisely when the action taken is
>counterproductive.  And if the bombing campaign is not counterproductive,
>then what is? By all accounts Milosevic is more popular now than before the
>bombing, the Russians are making noises about supporting Serbia, the
>cleansing has accelerated... and you say any action is better than none.
>This calls for a bit of explanation, i think.

Ditto here.

>At this rate, after the action is over, there won't be any Albanians left
>in Kosovo to protect.  Is that what you mean?

Unlike (all) the valid points you made in the bit about how unproductive
the bombing is, this is a nonsequitour.  Mr. Milosevec's actions against
the Kosovo albanians are the result of his criminal plan, not the result of
NATO action.
What then, precisely, is your point?

>i think it's a mistake to think that there are ready military solutions to
>these sorts of political problems. and  i don't think for a second that the
>'problem' (that being protecting the Kosovar Albanians) that we have all
>identified is the problem our rulers are out to solve - because i don't
>think our rulers are such complete and utter idiots as that. After the
>astounding failure of a similar approach in Iraq to meet its purported
>objective - noone who achieves and maintains power is that stupid.

I am really having trouble understanding exactly what it is you are trying
to say above.  But let me address some of the obvious things, you can let
me know later if I missed anything.

In the first place, the "problem" is not "protecting albanians."  It is
*stoping genocide.*  That said, I have been among the very first to condemn
the bombing as stupid and counter-productive and having utterly no chance
of accomplishing this mission alone, in the absence of coordinated ground
action.

In the second place, I am not speaking for you, but *I* have no ruler.
(Well, beyond The Faire Dora and the little red rocket varmint that lives
in my house).

In the third place, I don't think that Mr. Clinton's problem is stupidity
(although there is ample reason to wonder, from time to time), but *hubris.*

There are quite a number of otherwise intelligent and well-informed people,
intelligentsia; Heads of state; Congress-Critters; Academics; Politicians
and High-Level Government Wankers of all stripes; even some high-level
Military; all of whom believe that wars can be won with nothing messier
than the use of air power.  They are wrong, but hubris makes them immune
from self-doubt or suggestion that they might possibly be in error.

Actually, that IS *stupid,* just not as the term is conventially used.

>Unfortunately, this does not go beyond motive.  It is all about motive.
>But the motives of the public and the motives of the rulers are entirely
>different.  And when the public throws its support behind the bombing
>campaigns, well, whose objectives do you think will be met in the end?

Very well, Aaron, please expound in some detail what the motives in play
here are.

Yer Kindly Ol' Unka Bart