January 24, 2003

A little History

The Midwest Conservative Journal is smoking on Iraq today. The only thing I have to add takes off from the remarks of John Howard" (Australia's Prime Minister for those of us who aren't Al Gore):

"Mr Howard said NATO's attack on Serbian troops in Kosovo showed that UN approval was not a necessity for Allied troops to begin a military attack.

"Look at Kosovo. There was no UN resolution on Kosovo," he said. "I don't remember too many people at the time saying that's outrageous. I don't remember it.

"I'm not saying Kosovo is a model for what might happen here. I'm not suggesting that. I'm using that as illustration that people who look for a black and white outcome from the UN could be mistaken.

"In the end we could have a grey outcome from the UN and you then have to make a judgment on merits."

Let me go a little bit further. On Kosovo, not only was there no U.N. resolution, there was no congressional authorization. The short history was there was a cold civil war in Kosovo, with atrocities being committed by both Albanians and Serbians - in fact it was the Albanians in Kosovo who originated the use of rape as a means of war in the modern Balkans, and you were more likely to be victimized as a Serb than an Albanian in Kosovo. President Clinton demanded that Yugoslavia sign the Rambouillet Accord or else, with a deadline after which force would be used. This is typically known as issuing an ultimatum. We knew Yugoslavia wouldn't, couldn't accept this Accord -- Kosovo was not only going to be autonomous, it was going to be under NATO control and occupation, and under appendix B Yugoslavia itself could be occupied by NATO. Didn't anybody remember that WWI started with an ultimatum issued to Serbia - again one that couldn't be accepted? So when the deadline passed, NATO ministers voted for war, and President Clinton ordered bombing to commence, without any congressional debate or vote. That's right the United States of America went to war, not on a U.N. resolution, not on a Congressional Declartion of War, but on the vote of NATO. Where were the cries of give diplomacy a chance?

And did we confine ourselves to military targets? No. Not only did we bomb civilian infrastructure - power plants, bridges, car factories, that could be argued were valid because of their use to the military, we bombed a Serbian TV studio because we didn't like what they were saying on it. We targeted and killed civilians not because of their possible military value, but because we didn't like their version of events. Where was the outcry? What would have happened if in the Gulf War we would have targeted Peter Arnett (like blowing up his hotel room at night) because we didn't like how the Iraqi's were using him for propaganda purposes? Don't think too hard about that, instead, wonder why when the litany of why America is considered an arrogant cowboy country, we hear about Kyoto and not Kosovo.

So please, don't tell me that Bush is a warmongerer, or that an attack on Iraq without UN apporval is illegal unless you said the same thing about Clinton and Kosovo.

Posted by Kevin Murphy at January 24, 2003 08:52 AM | International Politics
Comments
We welcome comments. However, use no profanity and be civil.

Right on, man. Robert Kagan had similar thoughts in a good editorial.

Posted by: Joshua Claybourn at January 24, 2003 09:19 AM

Kevin -- excellent piece!! Many good points I hadn't thought of previously.

You know, I'm not in this to be biased one way or the other. I'm just trying to eck my way through this life, embracing the best information and conclusions I have available. I try to look at both sides of things.

The arguments out of the "use force" camp generally make sense -- though there's a bit of inconsistancy with Korea, no? But the "Peace Always" group ... I just can't follow it. All the arguments are so ... poor and contradictory. I worry its just boiling down to "what the US does is wrong". Or perhaps even just contra Bush, since Clinton got much of the same leverage.

But Clinton did one thing Bush didn't: He offered to be uninvolved, so that our allies begged us to the Balkins thang. No so with Iraq, where Bush is pushing so hard I fear he's creating resistance where there need not be any.

Posted by: Tim at January 24, 2003 11:21 AM

Joshua -- Kagan could have gone on beyond just Walzer. Take Tom Daschle (please) on Iraq all by itself. He voted against force in 1990 (Desert Storm), voted for force in 1998 (Desert Fox), and opposes force in 2002-2003. What's different? Well, in 1990 Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait without provocation. That's about as big an international no-no you can commit, but it wasn't worthy of force. In 1998 Saddam wasn't cooperating with UN inspectors, which isn't as big a no-no, but that rose to the level of force for Daschle. Now Saddam isn't cooperating with UN inspectors (again), but this time, for some reason, it isn't force worthy. There's plenty of Democratic senators (and other people) with identical histories, so I'm not trying to pick on Daschle. What becomes obvious is that the only change was the party of the President.

Tim -- the argument that you should never use force, or at least the USA is always wrong to do so are non-starters for me. The question is, is this particular use of force the right thing to do. In the Balkans, Clinton could be uninvolved because it didn't threaten either the US or any national interest. In Iraq, those who do think force is required think that because they feel Iraq does threaten the US and our national interests, more so than France or Germany.

Posted by: Kevin Murphy at January 24, 2003 01:48 PM

I understand their differences. But I think the US is no less a threat to the US and, say, to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia (or Turkey), or even France for that matter. What I'm referring to, offering to take our toys and leave, is more an issue of strategy than policy.

Posted by: Tim at January 24, 2003 04:29 PM