World Socialist Web Site
US, NATO prepare public opinion for
ground war against Serbia
By the Editorial Board
30 March 1999
Less than one week ago, according to no less an
authority
than President Bill Clinton, most Americans had never
heard of Kosovo and would not know where to find it on a
world map.
Now, after several days of massive bombing, the
escalating media campaign over the fate of the Kosovan
Albanians is setting the stage for the commitment of US
troops in the war against Serbia and the long-term
military occupation of Kosovo.
In an article that is typical of what has been appearing
in
American newspapers and television over the last three
days, Charles A. Kupchan, who served on the staff of the
National Security Council during Clinton's first term,
wrote in the Los Angeles Times:
"Now that the air campaign is underway, the president
has no choice but to prepare the country and America's
armed forces for a major ground war in the Balkans ...
"Air attacks will no doubt weaken Yugoslav defenses and
soften up the units operating in and around Kosovo. But
it may take ground forces to expel them from Kosovo and
stop the killing of Albanians."
In interviews conducted on national television, two
leading senators--Shelby of Alabama and McCain of
Arizona--stated that the Clinton administration must be
prepared to place troops on the ground in Kosovo. "I
don't
know myself of any war," Shelby said, "that's been
totally
won by air power." Warning that the desire to avoid
casualties should not determine US strategic aims,
McCain declared, "We're in it, and we have to win it.
This
means we have to exercise every option."
While the Clinton administration continues to state that
it
does not "intend" to order ground forces into battle, it
has
signaled an impending change in policy by claiming that
the violence of Serb army attacks on Kosovan Albanians
has come as a surprise. If this were true, it would mean
that the policy pursued by the Clinton administration in
launching the bombing was not merely reckless, but also
extraordinarily stupid. It is, however, impossible to
believe
that the tragic events that have been the first fruits
of this
war were not foreseen by the US government.
The very nature of the US-NATO demands--that Serbia
cede control of Kosovo, acquiesce in the expulsion of
the
Serb minority from the province, submit to foreign
occupation and the destruction of its national
sovereignty,
and accept the revision of its international
borders--could
not but lead to an eruption of violence against the
Kosovan Albanians once full-scale war broke out.
It is the height of cynicism for the United States to
feign
horrified surprise over the fate of the Kosovan
Albanians
when similar methods were employed by Croatia, with US
political support and military assistance, during the
Croatian offensive against Serbs in Krajina province in
1995. As even the New York Times admits, "the West
looked the other way" as 200,000 Serbs were "ethnically
cleansed" from Krajina and tens of thousands more were
driven from their homes in Bosnia because the actions of
Croatia served the strategic interests of the United
States.
It would not be difficult to prove that the Clinton
administration's invocation of "human rights" and
"self-determination" as a justification for its
onslaught
against Serbia is shot through with duplicity and
hypocrisy. (We invite our readers to review an earlier
article, " Whom will the United States bomb next?")
But what concerns us here are the implications of the
accelerating pace and escalating scale of US military
violence. Serbia is the fourth country to have been
bombed by the United States in less than seven months.
Since August 1998, US cruise missiles and bombs have
been launched against the Sudan, Afghanistan, and, of
course, Iraq.
The war against Serbia promises to become the bloodiest
and most ambitious exercise of all. This extraordinary
projection of US military power portends a major turning
point in the history of American imperialism.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, US government,
military and academic think tanks have been engaged in
a protracted debate over the extent and potential of
American hegemony. A continuous source of frustration
has been the persistent and widespread opposition within
the United States, despite the outcome of the gulf war,
to
foreign military engagements.
With increasing frequency articles are appearing in
policy journals deriding this opposition as an
unfortunate
legacy of isolationist traditions and the Vietnam
debacle,
and making blunt declarations that the United States
must be willing to use its vast power to secure and
defend
its global interests.
A significant attempt to provide a popular justification
for
imperialist militarism appeared in the influential New
York Times Sunday Magazine. The Times' principal
columnist on foreign affairs, Thomas Friedman, argued
that the aggressive use of American military power is
the
natural corollary of US preeminence in the new
globalized economy.
"As the country that benefits most from global economic
integration, we have the responsibility of making sure
that this new system is sustainable. This is
particularly
important at a time when the world has been--and will
continue to be--rocked by economic crises that can
spread
rapidly from one continent to another ...
"Sustaining globalization is our overarching national
interest ... Globalization-is-US."
And in his most provocative remarks, Friedman declared:
"The hidden hand of the market will never work without
a hidden fist--McDonald's cannot flourish without
McDonnell Douglas, the builder of F-15. And the hidden
fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's
technologies is called the United States Army, Air
Force,
Navy and Marine Corps.... Without America on duty,
there will be no America Online."
For all its smug self-satisfaction, Friedman's article
is
significant in that it highlights the indissoluble link
between economic globalization and the drive of the
United States to world hegemony. In contrast to all
other
major capitalist powers which--in deference to
historical
experience and present conditions--are obliged to place
certain limits on their ambitions, the American
bourgeoisie interprets its activities in uniquely global
terms. The integration of global markets is conceived of
as
being synonymous with the domination of American
transnational corporations. The triumph of world
capitalism is seen as the triumph of the United States.
Some 65 years ago, in a brilliant insight into the
dynamic
of American imperialism, Leon Trotsky wrote: "For
Germany it was a question of 'organizing Europe.' The
United States must 'organize' the world. History is
bringing humanity face to face with the volcanic
eruption
of American imperialism."
That day is now at hand.
See Also:
Worldwide protests against US-NATO bombing of
Yugoslavia
[30 March 1999]
US military uses Yugoslavia as testing ground for
high-tech weaponry
[27 March 1999]
Whom will the United States bomb next?
[26 March 1999]
Top of page
Readers: The WSWS invites your comments. Please send
e-mail.
Copyright 1998-99
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
