"The Germans to the Front!" | 62 comments (62 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

Some opposed it from the onset, others when realising that it is senseless destruction and won't even achieve its target (force Milo to concessions with terror bombing).

Not to discount individual crimes or the deaths of 1500 civilians, but the bombing campaign over Serbia did achieve its target. Of course, in the end it was backed up with a credible threat of a ground invasion, but still.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 03:30:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (4.00 / 3)

There was no large-scale ethnic cleansing in Kosovo before the bombing campaign. The start of bombing actually triggered it.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 03:33:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (4.00 / 2)

That's another thing, and worth to add: ethnic cleaning continued, but in the inverted way (ex-KLA thugs hunting away Serbs) after NATO moved in.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 03:42:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

That's a completely different argument again. Whether the tactics were used were correct, or effective, is a different from the question whether the operation should have been undertaken at all.

The large-scale ethnic cleansing was a deliberate reaction by Milosovic, it might be added. Presumably, he would also use this tactic in the case of a ground invasion (it would be far more disruptive to allied operations in the case of a ground invasion).

Before, we had small-scale ethnic cleansing and the occasional massacre. Should we have given Milosevic free hand in pacifying Kosovo after talks came into a deadlock?

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 04:28:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 1)

I have to say the Kosovo operation was what turned me away from interventionism. I agreed Milosevic had to be stopped or removed, but the way the operation was carried out convinced me that military intervention is too blunt a tool.

In addition, I was on a physics student mailing list and there was one Serb member who started posting dispatches from under the bombs in Belgrade, and I was shocked that others on the mailing list couldn't distinguish the civilian population (and one of their peers, who they might have met at a previous conference) from Milosevic or the government. Some people literally told him to die, already. It's disgusting what taking the war propaganda at face value will do to people.

DoDo calls himself a "recovering interventionist". I wonder what his turning point was.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:11:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 1)

There is no clear turning point, indeed I haven't fully given up on intervention as theory. But after Kosovo (which was a process of growing ever more sour on it not a moment of realisation), it was Afghanistan (back in late 2001, NOT when "needed troops were removed to Iraq" as some accuse Bush); and before it, I already wasn't too pleased with how the Bosnian campaign and then occupation was conducted. (And it was the post-Yugoslav wars that made me an interventionist the first time.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:23:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (4.00 / 2)

In theory, as Idiot Savant diaried recently, first, do no harm.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 06:09:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

I'm not so sure I agree with the "do no harm" theory. If somebody gets control of a government and starts doing bad things, at what point is intervention required? Perhaps an example is to compare Hitler and Stalin. Both were terrible dictators and killed millions of people, but in Hitler's case the world cooperated to shut him down, while in Stalin's case the world let it ride. Is that latter model the one we wish to follow? Just let a dictator murder people, because it is too hard for us to agree about the right way to do something about it?

I suppose one can say that yes, the best strategy is to allow each country to run its own internal affairs however it likes, and not worry about what goes on inside. But then one must not listen to whining about the civilian populations of Darfur or North Korea or where-ever--just let them rot.

by asdf on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 10:32:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (4.00 / 3)

I think the theory is that saving people from a dictator by killing more of them than he ever did or could and making life even worse than he did isn't a winning scheme. Intervening to make the situation worse is not helpful and if you can't think of an intervention that won't do that then maybe you shouldn't intervene.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 10:39:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

Well, using the current war in Iraq as a model, my understanding is that Saddam Hussein was responsible for upwards of 1.5 million deaths during the Iran-Iraq war (depends on who you think "started" it, but Iraq invaded first), and then there are couple of hundred thousand more in the Gulf war, and a few tens of thousands of Iraqis in internal issues after that. So if the U.S. has "only" been responsible for 600,000 casualties, then we're ahead of the game, correct?

There must be a better way to decide this sort of thing...

by asdf on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 09:29:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

So if the U.S. has "only" been responsible for 600,000 casualties, then we're ahead of the game, correct?

In fact, correct. Even counting all Iraq/Iran-War casualties for Saddam and using a high number for domestic casualties, 2 million over 25 years is a lower rate than 0.6 million over 2.5 years. Furthermore, it is not right to count absolute numbers: the real comparison is between Saddam in a contained state (e.g. since the summer of 1991) and US occupation. And 0.6 million is really the number of excess deaths, the death rate above what it was just before the US invasion.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 at 04:03:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 1)

Military intervention is always blunt, but in the case of the Kosovo war the results were relatively benign (so far). The situation in Kosovo is still not resolved, but it's not warlike anymore. Milosovic was removed from power by the Serb people, which may not have been possible if he had not lost the war/given in to NATO demands, or if it hadn't happened and he was still able to pose as the great protector of the Kosovar Serbs.

Serbia is on the way to become a functioning democracy, Montenegro is a free country, a crisis in Macedonia spun off by the aftermath of the war was resolved diplomatically. So to employ Colman's rule, intervention didn't create a bigger mess than was there before. If there would have been a less painful way, I don't know.

Of course, this argument can fall apart if you look at the larger consequences of the war, which were that the Republican party of the USA drew all the wrong lessons from it and that it may have fueled a resurgent nationalism in Russia. But both of these relations are rather tenuous.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 12:03:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (4.00 / 2)

I agree with you that those relationships are tenuous at best, but would invite you to re-examine your theory of "bigger messes".

In Kosovo, US-led NATO involvement may not initially have created a bigger mess than was there before, but it did involve the subsequent purging from most of Kosovo of all ethnic Serbs. And, having no central authority to speak of and essentially being run by organized crime, Kosovo is essentially now the entrepot through which heroin, sex slaves and illegal immigrants from SW Asia and SE Balkans transit. Not an ideal situation.

As for Serbia, the fact of the matter is that the NATO intervention did not drive Milosovic from power. Rather, violent Serbian protests in response to widespread election irregularities over a year later did. This election result arguably would have happened either way, given the state of the Serb economy and its painful (by contemporary European standards of the time) diplomatic isolation. The 96/97 environment was almost assuredly a thing of the past by 1999, given the deteriorating situation in Serbia even prior to the bombing campaign. In any event, arguing that intervention put Serbia on a path to western Democracy is discutable, given it has arguably not improved much since.

Also of note is the banditism in Serbia which, although not as acute in Albanian Kosovo, is still pretty bad (as evidenced by, among other things, the assassination of Zoran Đinđić by Serbian organized crime).

I'm not so sure you can say that the intervention made the situation better. In fact, I think it can be argued that it made things worse.

Unless, of course, if you are an Albanian Kosovar, and in particular if you are engaged in organized crime there.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:52:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (4.00 / 3)

Some points to further your position.

Contrary to war apologia spread by Clinton, Wesley Clark et al, Milošević was actually temporarily strenghtened during the war. This was natural, it happened so before and after elsewhere, but the advocates of air war never learn: people will pull together when bombs are falling. So Milo could actually step up his hunt for oppositionaries, some of whom had to go in hiding, and even lost popularity for doing so.

Furthermore, the West did have a role in Milošević's overthrow, but not via the war: it was the concerted effort to get the opposition to organise itself and unite (this went along two main routes, financial and material support in the form of sister city help to local governments under opposition control, and organising conferences -- the most important here in Budapest -- to get the different factions to cooperate).

And the long-term consequences for Serbia proper (they never consider the long-term consequences) were even worse than you describe. That chief propagandist of 'liberal' interventionism, Thomas "Let war give a chance!" Friedman, infamously wrote: "Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too." 'They' did 1950. Sane people realise that the country doesn't consist of Milošević, and realise that throwing a country back decades means poverty and resentment lasting for decades. Especially if once pro-Western forces get into government, and start reforms (including neoliberal "reforms"), yet the West won't send the promised financial aid, resentment will turn into hate and into support of demagogues of various dangerous kinds. This is exactly what happened. The air war killed any possibility of a genuine development towards Western-style democracy.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 at 03:55:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

The bigger mess 'theory' is a rather simple rule of thumb, I'll grant. It's attractive because it can be tested, to a degree.

What you want to know, of course, is what course of action would have been best, which would require plotting various scenarios, which is a lot of work and largely untestable. But the bigger mess rule ignores the hypotheticals that a situation is on the brink of spiralling beyond control and, on the opposite, that a better solution is clearly available.

All ethnic Serbs are not yet out of Kosovo, though the majority fled.

Though an aerial bombardment has an effect of rallying the people around the leader, losing a war does not have the same effect. Kosovo was the heart of Milosevic's nationalist politics. Posing as the protector of the Serbian minority there is what brought him to power, and failing at this will have had an impact on the elections. The credit for deposing Milosevic goes to the Serb people, but the Kosovo war will have played a role in it.

The Serbian economy recovered to its pre-war level in 2002 or 2003 and has since grown by 7% in 2004 and 5.9% in 2005.

The lawlessness and banditism in Kosovo was already there before the war began. In addition there was a guerilla war, which was threatening to spill over into Macedonia.

In total, I don't think it is arguable that the overall situation now is not better now than before the NATO intervention. What parts of the overall improvement were caused by the intervention can be argued about, as well as whether the intervention was worth it and whether the situation could not still deteriorate.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 at 10:31:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It was never (none / 1)

about genocide. The Kosovo intervention was predicated on rising Greek support for the Serbs, and Turkish support for the Albanians. The concern was that it the situation escalated it could draw Turkey and Greece into hot fighting. At the time Turkish and Greek planes reguarly antagonized one another over the Aegean. Clinton didnt want 2 NATO members to come to blows.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 at 12:19:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 1)

I'd argue only the credible threat of a ground invasion achieved the goal of removing Serbian troops from Kosovo, while the goal of collapsing Milo's system and to control Serbia weren't fulfilled. As Upstate NY reminds us again and again, Milo consented to this much at Rambouillet, but then the UCK/KLA representatives insisted on NATO troops in Serbia proper.

That the bombing campaign didn't reach its target should be also clear if one reads up on the original plan. It was a three-tiered escalation in hope of the regime balking or the people rebelling against it: first bomb the military in Kosovo, then bob it all across Serbia, then bomb civilian installations (bridges, refineries etc.) too. But the third ladder was reached in the first two weeks, NATO ran out of designated targets, two months before the end of war. What followed was senseless, copntinuing a failed strategy out of military bureaucracy and political inertia, with Clinton et al hoping that Milo would get enough after some time, until finally waging to make the ground invasion threat while climbing down on demands.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 03:41:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

I don't seem to be able to dig up the source - was it Stratfor? or Foreign Policy? - but there's an opinion that the ground invasion was bound to split NATO. It gained credibility only because former prime minister of Russia went to Serbia and persuaded Milo that the threat was real.

In this way, Eltsin's Russia provided its last (but priceless, if you are looking from certain quarters) service to the West (again, suitably defined). The mighty irony is, of course, that the current groundswell of patriotism in Russia started from anti-American and anti-Western sentiments born during the Kosovo campaign.

And yes, "planes over Belgrade" was a figure of speech. They were part of the military operation which, among other goals, included bombing of civilian targets in Belgrade (yes, I know, propaganda TV tower and Chinese embassy which presumably collected intelligence and passed it on to the Serbs). Still, they were providing military services. There isn't even the weakest of excuses the Czech Republic used (CR sent a field hospital plus military police to Kuwait and later to Iraqi south; as a result, local politicians claimed that CR isn't part of the "coalition of the willing". The USA included it in their coalition list anyway).

by Sargon on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 04:08:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

Indeed I even remember articles from the time that the ground invasion threat was a successful smoke and mirrors, with NATO leaders not really daring to risk it.

They were part of the military operation which, among other goals, included bombing of civilian targets in Belgrade

I recognised that, that's why I put that information as a final (side)note. Being party in a military operation is why Germany was a subject in that lawsuit for a specific operation done by American planes.

yes, I know, propaganda TV tower and Chinese embassy which presumably collected intelligence and passed it on to the Serbs

Personally I don't see those points as suitable excuse.

weakest of excuses the Czech Republic used (CR sent a field hospital plus military police to Kuwait and later to Iraqi south; as a result, local politicians claimed that CR isn't part of the "coalition of the willing".

Hehehe. During the Kosovo War, the then right-wing government of Hungary lent support by opening airspace, but was in denial about it. One thing the then opposition made noise about was whether AWACS planes circulate in Hungarian airspace. It was denied. Having been an astronomer student at the time, astronomers working at a mountain observatory told me about having observed AWACS planes with a binocular at sunset.

(Then for reasons I detailed here, Bush and PM Orbán got at loggerheads, and the sides switched: the right-wing became anti-Bush and anti-NATO, and the Socialists marched into Iraq, sending truck drivers, until Parliament forced them to recall.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 04:43:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 1)

"Propaganda TV tower"?

I don't suppose you think it would be ok for the US to bomb Al Jazeera in Qatar?

BBC: Al-Jazeera seeks 'US bomb' talks (25 November 2005)

A senior al-Jazeera executive is in the UK to demand publication of a memo in which George Bush allegedly discusses bombing the TV station's HQ.
Wadah Khanfar, al-Jazeera's director general, is hoping to meet UK government officials to press its case.
A spokesman for al-Jazeera told the BBC News website that the channel only wanted the record set straight.

The Guardian: How smart was this bomb? (November 19, 2001)

Did the US mean to hit the Kabul offices of Al-Jazeera TV? Some journalists are convinced it was targeted for being on the 'wrong side'. Matt Wells reports
When World Service correspondent William Reeve dived under his desk in Kabul to avoid shrapnel from the US missile that had landed next door, some think it marked a turning point in war reporting.
The US had scored a direct hit on the offices of the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera, leading to speculation that the channel had been targeted deliberately because of its contacts with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. If true, it opens up a worrying development for news organisations covering wars and conflicts: now they could be targeted simply for reporting a side of the story that one party wants suppressed.

I don't care what the military say, a TV station is not a legitimate military target.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:58:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

I'm sure you realise Sargon was only sarcastic.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 06:04:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 1)

This is an important point, though, sarcasm or not. If TV stations can be bombed because they are propaganda outlets, what to make of "embedded journalists"?

The designers of airial bombing campaigns like to bomb anything and everything on the flimsiest excuses.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 06:07:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 1)

I was just reminding some of the arguments made at the time or later to justify the bombing, definitely not endorsing them. I'm too opposed to this bombing campaign in general to even start distinguishing between legitimate and not targets.

by Sargon on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 07:27:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

The wikipedia article on the war is somewhat confused, but it states that NATO troops were (also) a NATO demand, and that the Serbian counter-proposal was unacceptable even to the Russians.

The initial target list, I believe, was the substance of much political discussion, with the French and Italians initially blocking much of the targets that the US wanted to bomb, and gradually being convinced to allow for an expansion. NATO was made up of many countries with different positions, and the development of the war has to be seen as a matter of compromise internationally and also nationally (between Clinton and a Republican Congress).

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:09:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

NATO troops were (also) a NATO demand,

Yes, because Albright took up Thaci's demand. After the Serbian side said they agree and Thaci said they don't, Albright changed the text. This wasn't a single example of Albright (wittingly or unwittingly) playing for war during the negotiations, consaider also the issue of NATO or civilian peacekeeper leadership.

and that the Serbian counter-proposal was unacceptable even to the Russians.

Which was the end of it. Then as Wiki says, the Serbian Parliament accepted the non-military part of the second version of the Rambouillet proposal, and Wiki goes into details about what Serbia [rest-Yugoslavia] objected to.

The initial target list, I believe, was the substance of much political discussion, with the French and Italians initially blocking much of the targets that the US wanted to bomb

This was more complex. On one hand, the US held some target decisions for itself, which hapened to be the most sensitive: especially those involving stealth planes. On the other hand, they held intel information regarding why they picked targets for themselves. In the end, war by committee wasn't really by committee.

Then again, the "sexed-up dossier" and the "45 minutes claim" of that war didn't came from Britain but Germany. I mean the claims about a pre-planned "Operation Horseshoe" and about torture chambers and concentration camp in Pristina's stadium. So there was cooperation and also in the dark dealings.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:55:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 1)

The NATO countries had the experience of a failed ceasefire between the parties before, which was observed by OSCE monitors. The Serb's behaviour at the negotiating table also seems to have been unreliable, first coming up with a wildly unrealistic counterproposal set to anger NATO and then ratifying only a part of the accord when NATO said that it was indivisible.

All of this happened within the space of 6 days before the campaign started, as the wiki article seems to suggest. So the narrative that the Serbs compromised almost completely but their enemy was bent on war (mimicking the WWI narrative) doesn't hold up. Once you have an agreement on a civilian peacekeeping force, you have to negotiate about its size, makeup, rules of engagement, etcetera. So just proposing that you may wish to allow a civilian peacekeeping force isn't much of a step forward to the demand that 30,000 NATO troops are allowed in.

Whether or not there was an operation horseshoe is still uncertain. The actions of the Serbs during the war suggest that something similar existed. Of course, the existence of a plan doesn't necessarily mean that it will be carried out.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 01:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

Another version with focus on the German politicians.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 06:03:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"The Germans to the Front!" | 62 comments (62 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Of Childless Cat Ladies and other matters...

Lest we forget: How extreme violence and division have been...

A blog policeman's lot is not a happy one

The Amazing thing that's happening in the US Presidential...

Hoover's FBI: Patriotism, Nationalism, MAGA, Fascism

Net Zero Energy - August 24, 2024

Recent Diaries

Dissuader l'Iran? | par Le Monde |

Post WWII: Building a Terror State Inside Europe

Tampered AP-900 Pagers Explode Across Lebanon

Of Childless Cat Ladies and other matters...

Hasbara Content U.S. State Dep't Briefing

Trump's Loomer Agent Provocateur

Dominique De Villepin Se Rend Immortel

Al Jazeera Documentary Egyptian Icon Inji

Jewish Terror and Genocide - Israel Firster

Impunity the New Judeo-Evangelical Coalition

Lest we forget: How extreme violence and division have been...

The EU In Inevitable Economic Backslide

Incoherent On Morals and Law & Order

Dutch Cabinet and Israeli Threats to ICC Prosecutors

Alan Dershowitz the Closet Republican

Israel Murders Peace Activists

GS: MAGA Policy Hits EU Economy Hard

Hoover's FBI: Patriotism, Nationalism, MAGA, Fascism

Trump Victory, Communism, Divine Intervention

City Agriculture - September 4, 2024

Occasional Series