Justin Raimondo has an excellent article in the American Conservative, where he traces John McCain’s devolution from sensible realist (including his stance against the doomed Lebanon intervention and the First Gulf War) to his reinvention in the late Nineties as a full blown neoconservative hawk. His turning point was the Kosovo War, where America bombed Serbia in order to expand Muslim dominance into Serbia’s Kosovo province. Now, these same Albanians harass and ethnically cleanse the remaining Christian population, a situation America enabled in the name of fighting genocide.
If McCain somehow wins the presidency, we can expect more ill-advised wars based on the dubious premise that the United States must identify and then smash every “rogue state” in the world. Iraq had an arguable relationship to U.S. interests, but the real models will be Kosovo, Somalia, and Bosnia. Raimando notes:
The brace of arguments McCain made in his CSIS speech in support of the Kosovo War didn’t hold together at the time—and fares even worse in retrospect. According to McCain, the Serbs threatened “our global credibility and the long-term viability of the Atlantic Alliance”—the former because two successive presidents had warned Milosevic against committing “aggression” against Kosovo, and failure to act would embolden other “rogue states” to defy American edicts. Yet McCain’s reasoning is circular: according to him, our government’s edicts must be obeyed because they are, by definition, non-negotiable—even by Americans. A certain course, once taken, must be pursued to the bitter end, even if it acts against our long-term interests. McCain’s worldview, which admits no possibility of error, is undiluted hubris.
5 Feb 2008 at 9:50 am
One of the ironies of the bombing campaign against Serbia is that it was reputedly undertaken to curry favor with Islamic states by demonstrating that the US would defend a Muslim population against a Christian aggressor, or antagonist, depending on your point of view.
I’ve lived in a Muslim country, Turkey, and I can tell you that when the Balkan wars come up in conversation, there are two, near-universal impressions of America’s repsonse.
The first is an utter lack of awareness that US ever did anything to intervene on befalf of the Bosnians or Kosovar Albanias. I’ve actually had to explain to university-educated Turks that the US took military action against the Serbs. Apparently, they’d never heard of this, or they simply pretended that they’d never heard of it.
If they do acknowledge that such a campaign occured, the predominant reaction is that the US stood by and watched as countless Muslims were slaughtered, and then only intervened at the last minute, and only to serve the cynical purposes of the US. In other words, the US was complicit in an anti-Muslim genocide, which it then pretended to oppose once the bulk of the killing had been done.
Bear in mind that people form these opinions without having read anything about the subject, or at least anything that might contradict their preconceptions. “Don’t confuse me with the facts,” is more or less the a priori assumption. Lest we feel to sorry for ourselves as Americans, this is the way they form opinions about everything. And here, I’m not speaking of the common man, but of the educated, professional class.
Leaving aside for a moment the wisdom of having interevened in the Kosovo conflict, it was certainly a failure as a foreign policy ploy. The people who formulate our theories about how to manipulate public opinion in foreign nations are, it seems to me, absolutely detached from any awareness of how public opinion is actually formed in these places.
Karen Hughes, this gangly, androgynous Texan, and her “women-should-be-driving” Saudi Arabian tour. My god, we really are led by a cadre of Sunday school teachers and circus clowns.
6 Feb 2008 at 4:44 pm
For us, Kosovo was primarily about preserving the European alliance. Europe was transfixed by the Balkan crisis, but was unable to do anything about it. By having us wage a war, and then share in peacekeeping duties, the idea of an effective NATO was kept alive.
Not sure it has done us much good.
6 Feb 2008 at 6:30 pm
Well, I am sure it will do us good when Georgia and Armenia and Botswana and God knows who else join the alliance. One world, baby!
6 Feb 2008 at 7:12 pm
Well it pissed off Russia. And Russia is a “rogue state.” So that’s a good thing, right?
I have no problem with NATO, and I think it’s appropriate the US stays involved without civilizational peers in Europe. But NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance, and it’s retarded to have it involved in the internal affairs of Serbia, even if it “keeps the alliance together.”
I’m also not so sure what we get out of it anymore, since Europe is so piss poor at power projection.