 |
||||||||
|
2/20/2003 06:34:00 PM | Timothy Yugoslavia This is in response to the inclusion of Yugoslavia on a list of countries the U.S. bombed in the last century (but, it is implied below, did not result in a democratic government). I would like to point out that if the United States and NATO had not bombed Serbia, Serbia would not likely be democratic today. Milosevic would still probably rule over Kosovo, ethnically cleansed of Kosovars, rather than sitting in The Hague being tried for war crimes. Milosevic was not ousted directly after the war, but it is clear it wouldn't have happened without NATO military action ousting Serbia from Kosovo (this is not entirely to the credit of Serbians, as many were upset he lost the wars in Kosovo and Bosnia, rather than that he fought them at all, and the atrocious manner in which he and his minions did 'fight'). So considering that the bombing of Yugoslavia liberated Kosovo, and led too long after to the overthrow of Milosevic, I have no idea why the 1999 bombing would be seem as ineffective in helping democracy. If this was meant to be jokey, it was a bad joke. Such blanket statements that 'zero' of U.S. bombings do any good discredits the intelligent points attempted, which Laura tries to rescue, by making those claims themselves seem ludicrious. But this doesn't mean, of course, that all (or most) U.S. bombings or military actions result in democratic regimes. Peter Beinart has some interesting comments on how liberal hawks might be betrayed by Gulf War II if the overthrow of Saddam does not lead to a thriving Iraqi democracy. (There are indications that Turkey might be permitted to put troops in Northern Iraq: so much for this being a war to help the Kurds! If Saddam is replaced with another, milder dictator, or if federalism is not allowed, Kurds might lose the autonomy they have now with Saddam in power!) Unfortunately, the motivations of the Bush Administration do matter for this war as they are key to seeing what will happen in the aftermath of any war. (And the evidence in Afghanistan is not good that Bush and company care the effort, attention, and money, it takes for reconstruction.) perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.