meta [part the second]

[Carvill, John]

<< I was also going to mention this as one of the few successful  
interventions against strong man rule, aggression, ethnic cleansing  
( some key marks of fascism). Unfortunately, the reluctance says as  
much as the action in terms of a consistent policy and is surrounded  
by counter examples in Latin America, the Philippines, Indonesia,  
Africa, Southeast Asia, Afghanistan, Iran. >>

Yes, the proper reasons for acting against Milosevic, over Kosovo, were not exactly the same as the actual reasons the action was taken. Equally, some of the tactics used were, of course, questionable. But still it was better than nothing. And a lot of the hand-wringing in the (liberal) media was way off base.

Peronally, I can see a lot of sense in the view that says 'the West' only acted over Kosovo because they had so shamefully failed to act earlier in the decade. After Srebrenica, Omarska, Gorazde, etc., etc., they felt too embarrassed to let Milosevic get away with any more.

Plus, of course, the British were instrumental in preventing earlier interventions. But we had had a change of Government here in 1997, which made a huge difference.

<< I disagree with Chomsky about Yugoslavia, but his thesis that the  
post WW2 US is is neither an anti-fascist nor a pro-democratic force  
still holds up remarkably well. >>

Sure. Chomsky and the other prominent figures on 'the Left', who decry the intervention(s) in Bosnia, seem to be clinging to (a) a chronically un-nuanced, absolutist view of the US/UK/NATO etc as 'Imperialists', and (b) the laughably inaccurate conception of Milosevic as some sort of 'Socialist'. Both these sets of misconceptions would be unworthy of a school debating society. What's most shameful and dangerous is that you the get these people's slavish followers, some of them well-known figures in their own right, bleating on about 'Imperialism' and 'de-stabilization', etc. Depressing stuff.