Yes, I see your point, and you are right, of course.
It is the problem of the US Left, and US Left have to solve it. I agree that
ZNet is more an academic
discussion forum than serious organizational structure ( although we shouldn
underestimate the impact they have on developing of the critical conscience)
and that central issue must be stopping american militarism.
I am suggesting, as I said earlier, that good umbrella- idea, for US Left
but for the international Left too, would be to condemn western imperialism
and militarism without not being attached to the partucular leaders or
movements. It seems to me that this strategy can give a moment of coherency
that is missing.
Here is one good article by Herman, in aftermath of the Balkan war:


VICTORY FOR WHOM?
By Edward S. Herman


The United States, leading its toadies and allies in NATO, has won another
smashing victory over an overmatched small country. There are very
occasional suggestions in the media that beating up somebody so small and
without defenses against high tech warfare, and the unwillingness to risk
casualties on our side in a less unequal ground war, is cowardly. But for
the most part the pundits are proud of our humane and ethical, if slightly
blundering, effort to do good and combat evil once again. It is a bit
troubling that we created an obviously large quantity of evil in the
process, but "it would have happened anyway" (Lie One) and "there was no
other option" (Lie Two).

In the case of the smashing of Serbia, with a thousand or more civilians
killed, a million refugees, and immense insfrastructure destruction, as
Daniel Goldhagen, Anthony Lewis, and others have explained, the Serb
population accepted and fostered evil, so that there is no need to tarry
over the morality of destroying their country. (Lewis has never suggested
that the U.S. citizenry was responsible for the U.S.-sponsored and/or
implemented Guatemala and Vietnam holocausts. We may be sure he does not
exonerate the general public on the ground that they "didn't know" because
the Free Press filters information in support of the holocaust managers
(although this is true)! Of course, as a longstanding apologist for U.S.
imperialism the issue of U.S. public guilt would never even occur to Lewis,
but the form of his answer has been clear in his apologetics--this is a good
and generous country, and its leaders only make "errors" in their blundering
attempts to do good, even if their errors are recurrent, unidirectional in
support of folks like Marcos, Pinochet, and Suharto, extend over decades,
and kill millions and leave entire regions smashed beyond repair.)

So the "humanitarian" aim was bullshit. The Kosovo Albanians suffered
enormous damage and losses and are much worse off than they would have been
with a settlement that was within reach at Rambouillet, but which NATO
rejected in favor of bombing. The Kosovo Albanians are celebrating, but so
briefly were the Serbs for the termination of phase one of their misery.
President Clinton has already announced that reconstruction will be largely
a European responsibility, but whether Europe will be prepared to foot the
bill for a U.S.-organized war remains to be seen. The entire area is likely
to be in turmoil and much worse off than before for a long time to come.

So what was the point of it all? And who won? Key objectives were to provide
a mission for NATO and reestablish U.S. authority over that organization; to
demonstrate to any "rogues" that get out of line just who it is that rules
the world; to give Clinton a cause that would rehabilitate his political
fortunes; and to justify the Pentagon budget and role and give a boost to
sales for the important weapons industries. (In Britain, both the Thatcher
and Blair governments have put great weight on arms sales, and stimulating
these is Toryized Labor's "industrial policy." Blair has criticised the old
Tories for not giving enough support to the arms industry; in contrast, "we
have launched our own strategy for a secure future for the defence industry"
[Blair spokesman David Clark]). The fact that Yugoslavia is outside NATO's
orbit of control and has traditionally aligned itself with Russia makes it a
highly eligible and bombable "rogue" (in contrast with Turkey), a wonderful
proving and testing ground for new weapons.

The real winners, then, are Clinton and Blair and their coteries, and
militarist factions and weapons makers everywhere. But as George Bush
learned in 1992, the political gains from a problematic military victory can
be short-lived indeed. The military establishments and weapons makers are
the more certain winners. Cruise missiles and bombs were effective in the
war and their inventories need replenishing. The stocks of Lockheed Martin,
Raytheon, and their military contractor comrades are moving up smartly in
parallel with the rise in the U.S. military budget; and across the globe
military expenditures are expected to soar. The NATO victory has shown
non-NATO countries that international law no longer protects them, and the
rush is on to seriously upgrade weapons systems (including the cheaper
chemical and biological weapons) to prevent similar "humanitarian
intervention" by the great powers elsewhere. This renewed arms race, along
with smashed countries and greater instability in the Balkans, are the major
legacies of the NATO war.



Back to the top
www.dissidence.org