Chomsky "Take say, the bombing of Serbia in 1999, again under Clinton. What was the point of that? The standard line is that the United States intervened to prevent ethnic cleansing, but to hold to that you have to invert the chronology. Uncontroversially, the worst ethnic cleansing followed the bombing, and furthermore was the anticipated consequence of it. So that can't have been the reason. What was the reason? If you look carefully, Clinton and Blair said at the time - as it's now restrospectively conceded - that the point of the bombing was to maintain credibility; to make clear who is the boss. Serbia was defying the orders of the boss and you can't let anyone do that. Like Iraq, Serbia was defenseless so there was no risk."
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1202editor.htm Monthly Review Volume 54, Number 7 December 2002 The Defense of Empire Wars of imperial expansion, however unjustifiable they may be, always demand some kind of justification. Often this has been accomplished through the doctrine of defensive war. In his 1919 essay, "The Sociology of Imperialisms," Joseph Schumpeter wrote of Rome during its years of greatest expansion, There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest—why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors, always fighting for a breathing-space. The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, and it was manifestly Rome's duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs.* Serbian News Network - SNN [email protected] http://www.antic.org/
