Kosovo conflict is artifact of NATO misguidance and antsiness

I would like to address those who feel that this issue is complicated, and that while the bombing is bad, so is Milosevic, and that perhaps this is really is a humanitarian intervention and a just war.

First, I would point out this is a war begun and prosecuted by NATO. NATO is not a humanitarian organization - it is a military alliance, or more simply, an instrument of war. NATO, 50 years old this past month, was created to prevent a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Yet once the Soviet Union ceased to exist, NATO did not close up shop, it went searching for a new mission. A large part of that new mission involved expanding eastward to include the post-communist countries such as new NATO members Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. This was deeply troubling to Russia, which believed it was being treated as NATO's new enemy. Yet NATO promised Russia that it would remain a defensive alliance. NATO made it through the Cold War without firing a shot; with Kosovo, it has become an offensive military force to police Europe and beyond. Another central component of NATO, both during the Cold War and after, is that it ties the United States to Europe. The United States dominates NATO much like a controlling partner dominates a corporation.

NATO is also the single greatest stumbling block to a negotiated solution to this war. Before the war, during the Rambouillet talks, Milosevic refused to let NATO occupy part of his country. The Clinton administration argued that Milosevic is just a paper tiger, that we needed to threaten him, show him we meant business, and he would back down. After all, it worked in Bosnia: a few NATO airstrikes led to Milosevic agreeing to Dayton peace accords. But our politicians seemed totally ignorant of the fact that the current situation is quite different. Bosnia was by then a separate country; Milosevic was supporting ethnic Serbs inside another country, and ending that support was not difficult.

The United States somehow forgot that Kosovo was and is part of Yugoslavia, and is an area of great historic and symbolic significance for Serbs. They should have known that, since Milosevic came to power 10 years ago by pushing Serbian nationalism in Kosovo. He, or any other Serbian politician, would never agree to let NATO troops march in and occupy part of the country. But the US insisted that either Milosevic accept this ultimatum, or they would bomb. This is like negotiating with a gun drawn. The US seemed supremely confident he would back down - just like in Bosnia. When Milosevic walked away from the table, they were totally shocked. In their minds, they had no choice but to bomb. Otherwise NATO would lose its "credibility" (and defending NATO's credibility has since become a major goal of the war). The US and NATO had not thought through what would happen if they actually had to bomb Yugoslavia. At most, they assumed that would fly a few jets, drop a few bombs and that would be the end.

The long stream of refugees out of Kosovo is truly horrid. Milosevic is a despot. The refugees should go home, and Milosevic should be tried for crimes against humanity. There were serious problems in the region before the war began. But these were not problems to be solved by military means. There were international observers, armed only with cell phones, that were monitoring the situation in Kosovo. NATO pulled them out so they could begin bombing. That is when the unchecked Serb aggression started.

The casualties, among Serb civilians in the first three weeks of the war were higher than all the casualties, on both sides, in Kosovo in the three months leading up to war. Kosovo was a smoldering fire, and NATO poured gasoline on it. Some 700,000 refugees have fled Kosovo since the bombing. NATO's war has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to improve their well-being.

The issue dividing the two sides is essentially the same issue that divided them before the war started: the composition of the international force to go into Kosovo. The United States has now compromised - they won't call it a NATO force, they will call it something else. Well, if the United States had made such moves before the war started, there is a strong chance that Milosevic would have agreed, and there would not have been any bombing, and there would not have been a massive exodus out of Kosovo.

I am not a pacifist. But I do believe that if you are going to use military force, that is if you are going to kill people, you need to make certain you have exhausted all peaceful options first. In this the United States failed miserably.

The single most troubling part of NATO's bombing campaign, to my mind, is the blurring of the distinction between combatants and non-combatant, soldiers and civilians (a characteristic certainly shared by the Serbs' ethnic cleansing). We are bombing Yugoslavia, and only with cruise missiles or from high altitude planes, because the United States is afraid to risk the life of a single U.S. soldier. But we are willing to accept the death of Serb and Albanian civilians as the inevitable "collateral damage" of warfare. And from those high altitudes, refugee convoys look like Serb tanks, and hospitals look like arms depots. In essence the United States is saying let Serb and Albanian civilians die, but God forbid something should happen to one of our soldiers. This position is not only morally indefensible, it is horrid!

But at the same time this position points out how people who want to end this war can make a difference. The Clinton administration doesn't want to risk soldiers lives because it is so afraid that American public will become quickly and loudly opposed to this war. Clinton, as ever, is terrified that public opinion will turn against him. Well, we just need to let him know that it's already happened. Stop the bombing, and find a negotiated solution.

Stephen Crowley is part of the department of politcs and Russian and East European studies.