Home | Hegemony | Archives | Blogroll | Resume | Links | RSS Feed | subscribe by email    


to Reason


blog roll

    Christopher Boyce is out on pa..., 2003-03-14 00:00:00 | Main | I sat down and started reading..., 2003-03-17 00:00:00

    "SILVER: I just find it very interesting that the Bush policy of preemption and what the president is doing now is merely a continuation of the humanitarian interventions that were embraced by liberals in the '90s."

    The major problem I have with the Kosovo campaign was that destroying civillian infrastructure was included in a "peace-keeping" mission - I don't think it was really justified in the first place, but I admit that there was a case for it. The Bosnian intervention was plagued with problems, but at least it didn't involved the establishment of permanent US bases in the region. The reason the former Yugoslavia became a blip on the radar screen was because it was in Eastern Europe, involving Europeans, and to begin with Clinton was extremely hesitant, like his predecessor, to do anything about the ethnic strife in the region. Congress - lead by WWII vets like Bob Dole, I'm guessing concerned over the parallels between WWI and the regional violence - put the former Yugoslavia in our sites. The idea that those interventions were "embraced by liberals" holds some water, the idea that they brought it to the table in the first place doesn't.

    One could argue about the economic interests involved - and Eastern Europe is, as is increasingly obvious now with the "old Europe" comments, of growing importance geopolitically to US planners. The underlying focus on Iraq stems from oil interests, the "humanitarian intervention" is being dolled up by the administration purely in terms of WMD and pre-emptive national security - planning related to "humanitarian" concerns are all secret, behind closed doors, and the administration continually refuses to be upfront about post-war planning while intra-administration feuding takes place. There was, at the very least, an actual conflict taking place in the FYR. The conflicts in Iraq that would warrant intervention on the premises "embraced by liberals" took place over ten years ago.

    The intervention in Kosovo was supposed to end with Milosevic's total surrender and the cessation of hostilities, and then we supposedly would go on our merry way. We didn't, but this time we're not even putting on the pretense of going on our merry way after Saddam is ousted. We'll be there to stay, and then - if the neo-con hawks get their way - target one country after another. This isn't merely "intervention", this is "civillizing colonialism" all over again, on a scale orders of magnitude greater than US involvement in Eastern Europe, amidst populations grossly more antagonistic to the West. It's never worked before without gross crimes being committed by the "civillizers", and it won't this time.

:: posted by buermann @ 2003-03-14 00:00:00 CST | link

    go ahead, express that vague notion

    your turing test:

journals, notes,
other curmudgeonry

- A Timeline -

Oil for Nothing:
US Holds On Humanitarian Supplies
Iraq: 1997-2001

the good book
and other cultural

The Autobiography
Mother Jones

Contact Info: