Politics and Facts

     Robert Gard is one of the many who have been following Yugoslav affairs with care. He writes:
     Isn't it something of a paradox that we were willing to drop the most objectionable provisions, from the Yugo standpoint, of the Contact Group ultimatum after two plus months of punishing bombing?
     We will never know [I agree! RH], but it appears that Yugo may well have accepted the G-8 plan, or something like it, BEFORE we added to the death and misery by employing tactics that corrupted our stated objective of protecting innocent civilians; our bombing produced the very results it purported to prevent.
     Instead of authorizing free passage of NATO throughout Yugo, the G-8 plan recognizes Yugo "sovereignty and territorial integrity;" there is no mention in G-8 of an international conference to determine the future status of Kosovo, "taking into account the will of the people (> 90% Albanian); and instead of a NATO occupation force of 28,000 NATO troops, G-8 specifies an "international security presence" under the auspices of the UN -- and there is agreement that Russian troops will participate. While the KLA, characterized by the US Special Envoy to the Balkans as "without doubt a terrorist group" may not have signed, we would have been spared serving as its air force and having the KLA function as the ground force NATO neede to cause the Serbs to consolidate previously dispersed forces to offer lucrative targets to our air power. Now we are stuck with our wartime "ally" that has agreed to turn in "heavy" weapons only -- but we have no way to determine if they simply hide them.
     My comment: Events are moving so fast that any statement is dated. Critics of the NATO action should heed Henry Kissinger. Testifying before Congress, and speaking in his usual judicious tone, he warned against intervention, but now he says that we must see the action through. Those who prevailed were not wild men, as their present activities show.
     The statement of critics that the Balkans are of no strategic importance flies in the face of history. They replaced the Low Countries as the cockpit of Europe, the name by which they were known because they served as a battlefield. Now those countries serve as the focal point of a united Europe, thanks to constructive diplomatic action.
     We may hope that similar action will now make what is called Southeastern Europe a zone of peace and a link with the Middle East, instead of a battle ground. If this effort fails, it will be a tragedy for Europe and for the United States. If it succeeds, it will be a major step toward a peaceful world. Critics of NATO actions will appear in retrospect like the Northern critics of Lincoln's war. NATO actions in Yugoslavia have been much more civilised than those of the North then.

Ronald Hilton - 06/23/99

More on Politics and Facts

     President Eisenhower, the victor in World War II, said "War is hell." Another General, Robert Gard, expresses the same feelings. If Eisenhower had been the vanquished, he would have thought that defeat is much worse than hell. President (emeritus of MIIS) Gard writes:
     While I don't disagree with what you stated, I am not proud of many the targets we elected to bomb. Even if you stretch and call them targets that were at least partially "military," they would flunk the standard of "proportionality."
     In addition, as General Clark stated, the pilot launched the weapon from such a distance and altitude that he couldn't see the bridge itself, much less the train on it; the same applies to failure to see the Red Cross on the roof of the hospital or the fact that tractors and cars were not Yugo armored vehicles.
     I can understand why the Chinese don't believe that we hit their embassy by accident. Failure to use our surveillance capability to confirm targets in populated areas borders on criminal negligence, especially if all we have to go on is an old map!
     My comment: Faulty maps were one cause also of the failure of the Bay of Pigs adventure. The downgrading of geography in our universities was the basic criminal negligence. While it is admirable that our military leaders do not gloat in victory, let us look on the positive side.
     Tim Brown, who lives in Nevada, says the Balkans have little strategic importance. European NATO leaders, who are very well informed, strongly disagree with that position. One more proof that the world looks different from different geographical locations.
     Some WAISers say that it is hopeless to try to bring order and welfare to the area. After World War II, opinions were very divided about helping Germany; some Jewish leaders wanted to keep the country agricultural in perpetuity. The Marshall Plan changed all that; it is now hailed as a great achievement.
     I had forgotten the bizarre Lyndon Larouche. I was suprised to receive copies of an announcement of his "Committee for a New Bretton Woods." Its program is entitled "Reconstruct the Balkans and the World!" It is called "the fight for a New Marshall Plan". It has a subheading "Southeastern Europe: Bridge to Asia". It is illustrated with a series of detailed maps, proof that he has a competent staff, even though his plan to reform the monetary system is, shall we say, unorthodox. He announces that he is running for President as a Democrat. His committee has offices in 21 cities. Heaven knows who or what is behind this. It looks as though he thinks the reconstruction of the Balkans will have the scope of the Marshall Plan, and he wants to position himself to appear as its leader. A historical footnote: In the 19th century there was a movement to make Constantinople (Istambul) the capital of a world union, as the place where East meets West.
     Some Texan WAISers have sent me glowing accounts of their state's favorite son, George W. Bush, and of his foreign policy expert Condoleezza Rice. I sent her an message asking fo a statement on his foreign policy. I did not even get a formal reply, so I will give my candid assessment. I have listened to George W. but got no answer to my question. He impresses me as a gladhander. Provost Rice is decisive and respected. She has the self-assurance of San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. As a black woman, she is a double exemplar of affirmative action. I am not impressed by her knowledge of or insight into international affairs, and, as a university administrator and sports enthusiast, she has not been able to devote the necessary time to following them carefully. My guess is that the Bush team is waiting to see how the Balkan imbroglio develops. If it looks as though a new Marshall Plan is popular, the Bush machine will do a LaRouche. He, however, can always claim that he proposed it before the outcome was clear. Indeed, he claims to have warned of a Balkan war during his 1988 presidential campaign. I do not know who stuffed his announcement in my Hoover box. Some one clearly takes him seriously. Stay tuned.

Ronald Hilton - 06/24/99