THE
PROVOCATEURS
In
the case of the most volatile trouble-spot on that list, where
conflict is most likely to break out in the near future, an
overwhelming 74 percent answered "No!" when asked:
"If attacked by another country, should the US help defend
Kosovo militarily, even though it could cost American soldiers
their lives?" Yet at this very moment, the US government and
some of its European allies are actively engaged in preparations
for a new phase of the Kosovo war. For what else are we to
make of the sudden appearance
of the Eastern Kosovo Liberation Army, formally
called the "Liberation Army of Presevo, Medvedja and Bujanovac"
– towns inside Serbia proper? The front
page of today's [March 2] New York Times describes
these worthies as more or less openly operating right under
the noses of their American patrons. "Wearing a mixture of
German and American fatigues," recruits "exercised in a muddy
field" in plain sight of the American soldiers in their watchtowers.
Ambushing Serbian police and terrorizing local farmers, these
thugs who are doubtless provided with more than just uniforms
by the US and Germany, are pretext protection, a kind of insurance
policy against being blamed for any renewal of hostilities.
As one UN official put it, the leadership of this new "liberation
army" is "hoping that the Serbs will retaliate with excessive
force against civilian populations and create a wave of outrage
and pressure on KFOR to respond" – a wave of outrage
provoked by US covert operations and amplified by the jingoist
media.
SENDING
A MESSAGE
Written
by Steven Erlanger, whose dispatches from inside Kosovo were
beams of light in the fog of war, the article details a wave
of terror unleashed by these mysterious guerrillas against
the Serbian population, including moderate Albanian politicians.
What are the Americans doing in the midst of all of this?
The German commander of the "peacekeepers," General Klaus
Reinhardt, claims that "he had pushed the Americans hard to
seal the boundary between Kosovo and the rest of Serbia."
But the American commander at Camp Bondesteel, on the Serbian
border, begs to differ: "I don't believe we can ever fully
seal the border between Serbia and Kosovo," says General Ricardo
Sanchez, but don't worry, because "we have sent out a clear
message that any cross-border insurgency will not be tolerated
or supported."
LAYING
LOW
Yeah,
they're getting the message all right: lay low, for now. But
not too low. Erlanger reports that the rebels are training
"within sight of the American watchtowers:" he cites one Vahid
Sylejman, a 39-year-old Albanian villager, who "said he was
sure the Americans would come to their rescue" in the event
of an armed confrontation between the rebels and the Serbs.
'Why else are they there?' he asked, pointing to the tanks
on the ridge." Why else indeed. "We have a kind of protection
from the Americans," added Vahid, and who can contradict this
bit of simple peasant wisdom? The three-mile "demilitarized
zone" that defines the Kosovo-Serbian border has become a
haven for the latest "liberation army" to carry out attacks
on Serbian territory. The pretense that these "rebels" are
a force independent of the KLA and the NATO-crats is thin
to the point of being threadbare. When they fired on a vehicle
belonging to the UN high commissioner for refugees, whose
driver made the mistake of not stopping at their checkpoint,
Erlanger informs us that the rebels brought the wounded UN
worker and his Serbian interpreter "to the Americans near
the watchtower for medical help" – in effect, reporting
back to headquarters.
OVERTLY
COVERT
It
seems clear from the facts on the ground that the US government
is engaged in yet another strikingly overt covert operation;
what we are seeing in operation is the much-vaunted plan to
subvert and overthrow the Milosevic regime announced by Clinton
shortly after declaring "victory" in the Kosovo war. Who cares
if three quarters of the American people oppose this scheme
to drag us into the Balkan quagmire? Our rulers have full
confidence in the power of the media to change public opinion,
or at least get those numbers down. Day after endless day
of countless refugees recounting tales of horror, vivid pictures
accompanied by stern presidential exhortations, the blaring
of editorials and the pontificating pundits, taken together
all this should be enough to turn it around – or so they
hope. And besides, even if the people are against it, what
can they do about it? With all the major presidential candidates
committed internationalists, and the punditocracy braying
in unison, the pro-war elites think they can pull it off.
ISOLATIONIST
AMERICA VERSUS IMPERIAL WASHINGTON
After
all, Americans have always been "isolationist," i.e. relatively
uninfected by the European taste for empire. We had to be
dragged, kicking and screaming, into two world wars, and today
the interventionists clearly have their work cut out for them.
It isn't just Kosovo, or the idea of "humanitarian" intervention
floated by the Clintonian wing of the War Party, not is it
just the fear of getting roped into the clan feuds of a region
whose name is a synonym for fragmentation and conflict. Questioning
their willingness to go to war for the defense of Taiwan,
South Korea, and Israel – whose status in the eyes of
the empire-builders is that of major protectorates –
respondents in the Newsmax/Zogby poll record a rather emphatic
"No!" It is not worth American casualties to defend Taiwan
(69%), Kuwait (74%), South Korea (72%), or Israel (59%): this
is what the American people believe. But what do the "major"
presidential candidates believe?
PEAS
IN A POD
Naturally
Al Gore supports the foreign policy of Bill Clinton, arguably
the most warlike President of the postwar era, and Bill Bradley
has been far s too busy declaiming against "white skin privilege"
in America to notice how it operates abroad. As for the Republican
candidates, since the Buchanan bolt there has been only Alan
Keyes to carry on the anti-globalist fight, but he is lost
in the shadow of McCain and Bush, two internationalist peas
in a pod whose views could not be more similar. Bush is surrounded
by such rabidly interventionist foreign policy strategists
as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, as I have pointed out
before, and McCain, who has dangerously little interest in
domestic policy aside from "campaign reform," styles himself
a modern-day Teddy Roosevelt and practically foams at the
mouth when he talks about "rogue state rollback." Is this
the same party that opposed the Kosovo war on the floor of
Congress, and was given a badge of honor – considering
the source – when Clinton accused them of being "isolationists"?
PARALLEL
PRIMARIES
Early
on in the primary season, Dan Balz of the Washington Post
and Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times had
a fascinating
discussion on the Lehrer News Hour about the impact
of the foreign policy issue in this year's Republican race,
and in view of what has happened since it is worth recalling.
Using the degree of support for the Kosovo war as his measure,
Balz posited "a clear division between what you would call
the internationalist wing of the party and the isolationist
wing of the party. And, on the internationalist side, what
McCain has had to say puts [him] clearly in that camp. George
W. Bush is in that arena, as is Elizabeth Dole. Pat Buchanan
is clearly the leader of the isolationist wing." To which
Brownstein added:
"You
know, there is a point of view, a pretty widespread point
of view in the Republican Party that there are almost parallel
primaries going on – a primary of the center and a primary
of the right, where each side – each wing is trying to
produce a champion that will meet sort of like the NCAA playoffs
in the ultimate final. And this [war] is almost a litmus test,
this really has become a litmus test within those individual
primaries. Every one of the major conservative candidates,
except for Steve Forbes has opposed the bombing. And every
one of them, without fail, opposes ground troops. On the other
side, almost all of the centrist candidates have supported
the bombing and the three leaders – McCain, Dole, and
Bush – are talking about ground troops. So you really
have two separate competitions going on in the Republican
Party right now on this."
LOGGERHEADS
But
it didn't quite work out that way. Indeed, there were
two separate competitions: they only problem is that the conservative
"isolationist" primary was short-lived, while the interventionists
are still a loggerheads over issues having nothing to do with
foreign policy. According to Balz, the major critique of Bush
by some Republicans on the Kosovo issue was "he was not that
clear about ground troops in the first couple of days" since
he was first asked the question, whereas McCain was "bold
and decisive." As Brownstein put it, the issue of introducing
American ground troops into Kosovo during the war
"
became another in a list of issues in which [Bush] seemed
to be stumbling a little bit, raising some questions really,
the big question, is he ready for prime time? So, it was more
on that line than on the specifics of what he was saying,
that this raised a problem. As Dan said, he has moved very
much toward the McCain position of, if we are in this, we
have to win."
GETTING
READY FOR PRIME TIME
So
you're not really "ready for prime time" unless and until
you've earned your stripes and proven to the elites, in government
and the media (or do I repeat myself?), that you're quicker
on the draw than the other guy, and just as reliable. That
is how presidential politics is played in this country, which
is how it is possible for our government to pursue a foreign
policy opposed by a full three quarters of the American people.
Through their control of the two major parties, and their
lock on the media, the War Party is able to block all discussion
of foreign policy during a presidential election- in spite
of the fact that this is the truly presidential realm, the
one policy area in which the chief executive of the US can
direct virtually single-handedly.
QUICK
DRAW McCAIN
And
so the question is reduced to one of temperament, style, and
– in Bush's case – knowledge. There is some value
in having a President who can't pinpoint Chechnya on a map,
but the danger here is that he will have advisors who not
only know where it is but will also have calculated its net
worth, as is the case with Dubya. As for McCain, he is being
flamed as "McKLA" – not to mention McNutty and McClinton
– by the habitues of FreeRepublic.com,
the premier conservative interactive site, a nickname that
neatly sums up the dangerous and even wacky tilt of his foreign
policy views. Here is a man whose darkest impulses –
visible lately even to his idolaters – could be played
out on a global scale. I shudder to think about it.
THE
CONSERVATIVE FIELD
This
fall, the only voice raised against the bipartisan internationalist
consensus will be that of Pat Buchanan, whose departure from
the GOP led to the collapse of its isolationist wing, as none
of the others had anything close to a consistent position
on this key question. Forbes, the candidate of a few profoundly
misguided "libertarians," supported the Kosovo war and hailed
NATO's expansion as far as the Ukraine. Bauer played the China
card, and got nowhere fast – although a candidate who
looks like a huge embryo is probably not the best messenger
for such a wildly unpopular stance (see polls above). I have
previously discussed Alan Keyes' principled opposition to
the Kosovo war: given what I know of his foreign policy positions,
and what seems to be an implacable integrity, one wonders
if he will bring himself to support either Bush or McCain
– a question no doubt increasingly on the minds of his
supporters.
BOMBS
AWAY!
Today
the McCainiacs are carpet-bombing the Bush camp with charges
of "extremism" – tomorrow they'll target the Serbs, the
Iraqis, and perhaps the Russians and the North Koreans, first
demonizing them and then setting them up for destruction.
The Bushies are conducting anti-Masonic agitation in league
with Pat Robertson, we are told, and the Iraqis are
assembling "weapons of mass destruction" – two key
points made in Thursday's California debate – and so
it's bombs away! As Bush cowers and cringes his way
through this primary, and Keyes never brings up the foreign
policy issue without being directly asked, this vital question
is rarely if ever debated. That is how the War Party
has seized control of the government in spite of the people's
yearning for peace. By controlling the electoral and opinion-making
process, and manipulating the procedures that ensure their
hegemony, the warmongers have a lock on the war-making mechanism
of the mightiest empire in history.
THE
COMING INSURGENCY
And
so, no, it isn't quite time to declare victory, in spite of
the Newsmax/Zogby poll. Far from abandoning our task, now
is the time to take it up with even more alacrity.
The people are with us, and that is cause for optimism –
and renewed dedication. It means that Antiwar.com
is more essential than even we thought. The War Party inhabits
the seats of power, in private as well as public life. Our
goal is to not only inform but also to activate the great
American anti-interventionist majority, and prepare the insurgency.
|
