> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 22:20:03 -0500 > Subject: [PEN-L:6319] (Fwd) A WAR AGAINST ALL OF THE SERBS > Priority: normal > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- > Date sent: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 13:32:25 -0700 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Sid Shniad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: A WAR AGAINST ALL OF THE SERBS > > The Chicago Tribune April 29, 1999 > > A WAR AGAINST ALL OF THE SERBS > > It's hard to justify a policy whose chief achievement _ and possibly its > main purpose _ is to make life miserable, frightening and dangerous for > people who have no control over what is going on in Kosovo. > > By Steve Chapman > > War is to morality what the desert is to fish: a uniformly > inhospitable clime. That's true even if the war is small and limited. > The air campaign in Yugoslavia was conceived as a brief, surgical > strike on Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic and his murderous > military and paramilitary forces. But in five short weeks, it has > expanded into a war on one group of his victims: the Serbian > people. After bombing and re-bombing all the strictly military sites > it could find, without inducing Milosevic to surrender, NATO > expanded its list to include facilities whose destruction will do the > most harm to civilians. NATO Allied Supreme Commander Gen. > Wesley Clark, an advocate of what is known as "bringing the war > home to Belgrade," finally got permission to take out mainstays of > the Serbian economy, including the nation's electric power grid. > Purely economic facilities were originally off-limits, but The > Wall Street Journal reports that this "restriction is slipping almost > daily." NATO is also planning a naval blockade to cut off Serbia's > oil supplies. > Even many of the attacks on "military" targets have had far less > effect on Milosevic's campaign of terror than on the daily life of his > long-suffering populace. Rail lines have been severed, industrial > plants flattened and bridges demolished. Often, bystanders have > found themselves classified, posthumously, as "collateral damage." > Travel is hazardous, and just getting to work can be nearly > impossible. Last week, at least 10 employees were killed when > allied warplanes blasted a most unmilitary target--the official state > television station in Belgrade. Why? Because "it has filled the > airwaves with ... lies over the years," said a NATO spokesman. > Well, so has Bill Clinton, but NATO hasn't fired any cruise missiles > at the White House. > The alliance deserves some credit for clearly going out of its > way to minimize direct civilian casualties. It also can be excused if > some strikes unavoidably kill non-combatants. But it's hard to > justify a policy whose chief achievement--and possibly its main > purpose--is to make life miserable, frightening and dangerous for > people who have no control over what is going on in Kosovo. > The apparent goal is to inflict so much pain as to force > Milosevic to change his policies or to force his people to change > rulers. "We're holding civilians hostage," says DePaul University > political scientist Patrick Callahan, an expert on just-war theory. > He may not get an argument from German Gen. Klaus > Naumann, chairman of NATO's military committee, who says > Yugoslavia has been set back economically by 10 years and figures > that the air campaign could eventually turn the clock back half a > century. Naumann warns that if Milosevic doesn't retreat, "he may > end up being the ruler of rubble." NATO, in short, plans to reduce a > country that is home to 10 million people to a huge pile of > worthless debris. > New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, the most fervent > supporter of the air war, endorses that approach, telling the Serbs, > "Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your > country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. > You want 1398? We can do 1398, too." Why stop at 1398? Why > not revive the idea, proposed but never adopted in Vietnam, of > bombing the enemy all the way back to the Stone Age? > If the aerial onslaught continues month after month, as > threatened, some civilians will be blown up, but many more will be > endangered by the secondary effects--food shortages, lack of fuel, > loss of medicines, destruction of water, sewage and sanitation > systems, poorly functioning hospitals, and the like. In Iraq, the > international economic embargo already has had these > consequences, causing some 90,000 deaths a year, by United > Nations estimates. > In Yugoslavia, as in Iraq, it's unlikely that punishing the villain's > subjects will advance our larger purpose. Disrupting transportation > hasn't stopped or even slowed the Serb offensive in Kosovo: > Milosevic has more soldiers there today than he did when the > bombing began. Interrupting state TV didn't weaken his grip. > Curtailing oil supplies will cause no more than modest > inconvenience to Serbian military forces: They'll get whatever fuel > is available, while civilians will do without. All we are doing is > uniting the Serbs in justified hatred of the West. > Torturing or killing innocents in order to further a political goal > is normally regarded as terrorism. But deliberately and needlessly > inflicting pain on the people of Serbia, while creating conditions > that promise to spawn disease and death, is seen by NATO as a > perfectly legitimate strategy. Americans are highly attuned to the > risks of losing soldiers and pilots in combat, but we need to beware > of the bigger danger of this and every war: coming to resemble the > enemy. > >
