Date: Thursday, April 01, 1999 4:03 PM
Subject: Why did events in Kosovo take the Clinton Administration by
surprise?
>Why did events in Kosovo take the Clinton Administration by surprise?
>By Martin McLaughlin
>1 April 1999
>
>Clinton administration officials have admitted in recent days that they
>gravely miscalculated the likely consequences of launching air strikes
>against Serbia. They claimed to have been "taken by surprise" by the
>intensified bloodletting and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, which has resulted
>in tens of thousands of ethnic Albanians being driven out of their homes
>and forced into refugee camps in Albania and Macedonia.
>
>If one assumes for the sake of argument that these claims are true, it
>demonstrates the blindness and stupidity which guide the formulation of
>American foreign policy. Blindness, because there were many forecasts of
>the disaster that would ensue in Kosovo in the event of NATO bombing, even
>in the pages of the American press. Stupidity, because even a rudimentary
>knowledge of the history of the region would suggest that dropping bombs on
>Serbia is a sure way to incite nationalism and provoke more violence.
>
>Even more extraordinary is the conclusion which administration spokesmen
>seek to draw from this admission. Having conceded that their decision to
>launch the bombing of Serbia was based at least in part on an enormous
>miscalculation, the White House and State Department declare that the
>remedy is even more bombing! But why should the latest argument for heavier
>bombing be accepted, when it comes from those who failed to foresee the
>obvious consequences of the first week of air strikes?
>
>What is behind the manifest incapacity of American foreign policy
>makers--not only in the White House and State Department, but in Congress
>and in the elite circles in Washington where such issues are debated? This
>is an important question, for we are dealing with ignorance not merely as
>the affliction of various individuals in government, but with a definite
>socio-political phenomenon. In the final analysis, the political dementia
>that seems to prevail in Washington arises from the nature of American
>imperialism and the contradictions which beset its role in world affairs.
>
>There is an enormous gap between the global aspirations of the United
>States, which seeks to impose its will in every corner of the planet, and
>its real power to affect events. The United States is, as Clinton and
>countless media pundits proclaim, "the world's only superpower." But this
>status does not give America unlimited scope to exercise its domination.
>Indeed, from the standpoint of its economic and political power, the United
>States is far weaker today than it was 50 years ago, at the end of World
>War II, when American industry dominated the world market and its major
>imperialist rivals--Germany, Japan, Britain and France--were either
>conquered or bankrupted by the conflict.
>
>This relative decline has left the United States with undisputed dominance
>in only one area--military force. Hence the infatuation of American
>policy-makers with violence, and their unshakeable conviction that cruise
>missiles, smart bombs and other high-tech weapons can produce the results
>desired by Washington, regardless of historical processes and local
>conditions. The end result is diplomats like Madeleine Albright, who
>believe that military power makes diplomacy itself irrelevant. Their answer
>to every problem is "We'll bomb."
>
>Another factor is the role played by the mass media in the degradation of
>political and intellectual life in the United States. Especially since the
>Vietnam debacle--which was followed by recriminations about the impact of
>critical media coverage of the war on public opinion--the ruling class has
>developed the media as a gigantic machine for stultifying public opinion
>and blocking any genuine democratic discussion about American foreign
>policy. Of course, crass commercial considerations have contributed to the
>virtual disappearance of serious news analysis and commentary. The evening
>news consists largely of a series of 30 to 60 second clips. A feature that
>runs as long as two minutes is called an "in-depth" report. The
>transformation of news programs into a variety of entertainment requires
>that all political subjects, no matter how complex, be reduced to the most
>simplistic formulae, i.e., American "good guys" vs. foreign "bad guys." Any
>foreign adversary of American interests is likely to find himself labeled
>"another Hitler."
>
>In the language of the Pentagon, however, there has been "collateral
>damage" from the carpet bombing of public opinion with stupidity and lies.
>The social types recruited into the media are, with few exceptions, largely
>ignorant of the topics and issues they pronounce upon. And those who give
>some sign of intelligence have been utterly corrupted by the wealth and
>prestige bestowed upon them by their celebrity status. Thus, there is not
>to be found in the media a single commentator who seriously questions the
>assumptions and premises upon which foreign policy decisions are based. But
>in the process of lowering the level of public understanding of world
>events, the American ruling class has also succeeded in stupefying itself.
>
>Copyright 1998-99
>World Socialist Web Site
>All rights reserved
>
>
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
