Date: Thu, 1 Apr 99 16:48:04 EST
From: "Brian J. Callahan" <Brian=J.=Callahan%MT%DFCI-AT-EYE.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject: re: The Anarchist Attitude To War


Dave writes:
>What would that mean in practice ? Is Brian asking 
>the -AT--list subscribers to arm the Kosovars ?
>
>No, of course he isn't. What it means is 
>"please, o governments of the USA and
>the United Kingdom and the other NATO
>governments, will  _you_  arm the Kosovars?"

Actually, I was rather thinking of radical organizations collecting money and 
buying weapons, although the practical difficulties are large.   At any rate, 
it seems to make more sense to buy them the means to defend their homes 
rather than building refugees camps after they've been cleansed.  

And I think armed Kosovars would simply be more likely to help other Kosovars 
on the ground than anybody else.  Even if it were the evil states doing the 
arming--it's better than inaction or NATO troops imposing NATO's will.

>Brian said that he was talking about arming the whole population, 
>and not just the KLA.  But   -   let's face it   -   neither the USA 
>nor any other government is in the business of handing out
>arms with no strings attached. Did the USA arm the whole 
>population of Nicaragua ? No, they armed the Contras. 
>Did the USA arm the whole population of Afghanistan ? 
<snipped>

Right, that's what they have done, but that's not what I was suggesting.
As I said, I didn't think it likely NATO would go for this because does not 
advance their true interests...but it would advance the interests of the 
Kosovars which they *claim* to be fighting for.


>And would this arming be instead of using bombs and Cruise 
>missiles ? No, apparently not. Brian still wants B52s and Cruise 
>missiles. He would just like them to be better aimed. Well , 
>I'm sure there is nobody in the top brass of NATO who would 
>disagree with that. 

Nope, the aiming that they are doing is just fine...they have begun to attack 
troop and tank concentrations...without such concentrations the Yugoslav army 
and paramilitary would not be able to successfully attack villages filled 
with armed, if untrained, Kosovars.

>By asking for the use of such weapons, 
>Brian is supporting the existence of NATO, and the existence 
>of the governments which make up NATO. 
Nope, I'm offering a suggestion, a modest proposal if you will, on how NATO 
could acheive the goal they *claim* to be fighting for.  Adoption of this 
plan would actually undermine NATO's drive to absorb Eastern Europe, so it's 
unlikely we'll see it happen. 

>Brian is not the first person to get sucked into supporting 
>the state war machine for what appeared (at the time) 
>to be good, humanitarian motives. Even anarchists can 
>make that mistake. But , of course , in doing so, they 
>abandon anarchism. The most famous example 
>is Kropotkin, who supported the First World War 
>on humanitarian grounds. It was a mistake for
> Kropotkin to abandon anarchist principles then, 
>and it's a mistake now.

Poor mistaken Peter...he was wrong to take sides in that foolishness, 
although mebbe anti-German sentiment played some part along with humanitarian 
concerns. 

But all wars?  How about WWII?  If one evil is great enough, sometimes it 
makes sense to choose the lesser of the two, IMHO.  Give me a capitalist 
pseudo-democracy over fascism any day.  

>I know that not everybody on the anarchy-list 
>is an anarchist, but presumably everybody
> on the anarchy-list is at least interested 
>in what we anarchists think. So let's be 
>clear about this. Anarchism is not pacifist, 
>but it   _IS_   anti-war. If somebody wanted 
>to have a go at assassinating Milosevic, 
> I doubt if anybody in anarchist circles would 
>shed a tear over that. 

I doubt it would do much good...there are plenty of swine-in-waiting.  Until 
the Serbs reject him and his policies, assassination is futile.

>In fact, I doubt if any tears 
>would be shed over the entire Yugoslav government 
>being assassinated. But anarchists do not ask 
>state war machines to do things.

I didn't ask, I suggested.  And Madeline has yet to return my phone call.

> The  _only_ anarchist thing to say to a state war machine 
>is "STOP" .
Not if I was in England with the Wehrmacht across the Channel in 1940.  "KEEP 
GOING UNTIL YOU GET RID OF THAT MENACE, THEN WE CAN TRY TO GET RID OF YOU 
LOT," was what I would have shouted.  I probably would have gotten a bit 
hoarse, but I woulda shouted nonetheless.   In most cases, I would agree any 
state military intervention is bad, but I don't think you can make an 
absolute rule.  In the case of Kosovo (or Kosova as the US spokesmodels seem 
to be drifting towards), I think NATO did more harm than good...except for 
the interests of NATO states.  But the harm has been done and horrors are 
being committed against these poor schmucks.  All I'm saying is that the only 
reasonable way I can see to help them now is by arming them.  NATO ground 
troops would just mean a NATO protectorate filled with the too few Kosovar 
survivors...better that they create a zone they control themselves--autonomy 
not wholly ionconsistent with anarchist principles.  Inaction will mean 
unstopped slaughter, the worst authoritarian nightmare one can imagine.  Best 
if we had a world-wide anarchist revolution tomorrow, but on the off chance 
that doesn't happen...