In a December 8, 2002 NY Times Magazine article titled "The Liberal
Quandary Over Iraq" that is still available online, author George Packer
stresses the importance of the Balkan wars in the defection of a wing of
the left to American social patriotism. He writes:
"So let me rephrase the question. Why there is no organized liberal
opposition to the war?
"The answer to this question involves an interesting history, and it
sheds light on the difficulties now confronting American liberals. The
history goes back 10 years, when a war broke out in the middle of
Europe. This war changed the way many American liberals, particularly
liberal intellectuals, saw their country. Bosnia turned these liberals
into hawks. People who from Vietnam on had never met an American
military involvement they liked were now calling for U.S. air strikes to
defend a multiethnic democracy against Serbian ethnic aggression.
Suddenly the model was no longer Vietnam, it was World War II -- armed
American power was all that stood in the way of genocide. Without the
cold war to distort the debate, and with the inspiring example of the
East bloc revolutions of 1989 still fresh, a number of liberal
intellectuals in this country had a new idea. These writers and
academics wanted to use American military power to serve goals like
human rights and democracy -- especially when it was clear that nobody
else would do it."
In light of this, it is useful to consider arguments from the Spectre
online magazine that cast doubt on the "humanitarian intervention"
motives of that prelude to the war against the Iraqi people.
===
SpectreEzine
An Alternative View of What
Happened in Yugoslavia
As we move towards another war, Alfred Mendes looks at the background to
the US's last major imperialist adventure.
(snip)
In September 1995, with the ARRC now ready, NATO announced its readiness
to deploy a large force to implement a Bosnian peace settlement. They
would now be in overt control of the situation and they pressurised the
warring factions to sit around the table. On the 5th of October 1995
they announced a 60-day cease-fire which came into effect a week later.
Ultimatums were now the order of the day - accompanied by the carrot of
an embargo-lift.
Simultaneously, the UN echoed NATO's cease-fire announcement by
announcing its intention to reduce its troops in the region. The Dayton
peace talks took place in the intimidating atmosphere of the
Wright-Patterson Air Force base near Dayton, Ohio. The embargo against
Yugoslavia was lifted in November - and the peace accord signed in Paris
on the 14th of December 1995. Just previously, in early December, as a
result of a conference convened in London to discuss the implementation
of the Dayton accord, a Peace Implementation Council - with no UN
representatives onboard - was set up in Brussels. The resulting
Implementation Force (IFOR), a force of 60,000 American, British and
French troops - under the command of the ARRC - was then deployed
throughout Bosnia into three zones of operation. In December 1996 IFOR
was augmented by the Stabilisation Force (SFOR) of 30.000 troops. The
cease-fire could now be ensured by this display of military might.
America's tactics in the crisis from early on had raised doubts as to
its impartiality and avowed compliance with the tenets of reconciliation
inherent in a peace-making process. David Owen had voiced such doubts,
and certain subsequent actions were to validate such doubts. As a result
of a signed agreement on military co-operation between the US and
Croatia (the latter had already signed a similar agreement with Turkey),
the Croatian Ministry of Defence had signed a contract with Military
Professional Resources Inc. (MPRI) in 1994, under which the latter would
act as military advisors to the Croat army at the Petar Zrinski military
school in Zagreb.
full: http://www.spectrezine.org/war/Mendes3.htm
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
