|
--Robert D. $utton The bombs launched by NATO at Kosovo have been followed by rationalizations launched by President Clinton at a bewildered public. As usual, the philanderer-in-chief is getting us into a pointless, sacrificial, no-win "humanitarian peacekeeping mission"--much like Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and Vietnam. At first glance, this looks like a simple case of a prestige-hungry president (he has to accomplish something besides being impeached!) sending troops into a senseless crusade, and the best option seems to be getting out now. On closer examination, it really IS that simple. But there are those who would have us believe that this insanity is in our "national self-interest." "We must," declares the president, "remember the lessons of the past." (Two World Wars were fought in Europe; we must, supposedly, prevent a third.) Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it--but those who misinterpret the past will not learn anything from it. It is time for Mr. Clinton to learn what history really teaches us about war. It is true, as the interventionists have cried, that World War I began in the Balkans. It is not true that a Balkan feud caused World War I. A major war is only possible when major players are involved� We all know the story. Serb nationalists assassinate Austrian Archduke Ferdinand --> Austria uses the incident to justify taking over Serbia --> Russia, honoring an anti-Austrian alliance with its "little Slavic Sister," declares war on Austria --> Germany, itself allied with Austria, declares war on Russia --> the French, sharing Russia�s resentment of Germany, mobilize their own military --> in response, Germany declares war on France and marches through neutral Belgium to attack it --> Britain, honoring its commitment to protect Belgian neutrality, enters and declares war on Germany. The major European players of 1914 (Germany, France and Britain) did not go to war because they had any personal stake in the Balkans--rather, they were dragged in by their "entangling alliances" with countries that did (Austria and Russia). The US, in fact, did not go in for self-defense. We went for a "political ideal": to "make the world safe for democracy." (The Versailles Treaty and "National self-determination" not only failed to accomplish this, but spawned another world war!) The more things change, the more they stay the same. If we are again on the verge of another world war, it is precisely because NATO--an alliance--is again dragging major powers into a conflict they would otherwise have no interest in. The US, again, is going into a foreign conflict for vague--and, as I�ll explain later, doomed--ideals: "peace" and "an end to ethnic cleansing." And, again, Russia is reacting with actual threats of military retaliation! So much for the lessons of WWI. [Editor's note: the US has since alienated China through the accidental (?) bombing of its embassy.] (A note about the concept of NATO: there is nothing wrong with an alliance between free countries, for the purposes of self-defense. However, NATO is no longer being used merely--if it all--for the defense of its [relatively] free members. Having lost its main function with the collapse of communism, it has been transformed into a continental police force. The US had an interest in helping even semi-free countries defend themselves from invasion. It has no interest whatsoever in helping those same nations settle local squabbles.) What about World War II? It is true that a world war broke out in large part because those who could have stopped Hitler early on--namely, the British--stood by and tried to "appease" him. However, Milosevic is not Hitler, and Serbia is not Germany. Even IF Milosevic has plans to conquer the world (let alone any significant part of Europe), he lacks the means (manpower and a large economic base) to implement them. (And even Hitler wasn�t invincible: his campaigns to take Britain and Russia were complete disasters. Further, much of his gains were conceded to him out of appeasement: the Czech�s were actually pressured by the British and French to submit to Hitler!) Perhaps the greatest refutation of the idea that intervention in Kosovo is in our "self-interest" was given by Vietnam--a conflict conspicuously absent from Clinton�s speeches, all the more ironic when one considers his personal experience (or lack thereof) with it. Here, then, are the "lessons" of Vietnam. Lesson number one: the "domino theory" is baloney. After South Vietnam fell, neighboring Laos and Cambodia (two strategically and militarily insignificant countries) also fell--but that was it. The other countries of that region did not succumb to communist civil war, but actually went on to greatly improve their economies. (Nor did Latin America go "Red" after Nicaragua fell to the communists in the 1980s--much to the chagrin of Marxists.) Milosevic might well be able to take over all of Yugoslavia and a few surrounding regions--but not any major countries. Unlike Hitler, his limits are not established by his "word," but by his military capabilities. The best way to estinguish the "Balkan fire" is to let it burn itself out, rather than giving it something to feed on. Indeed, giving Milosevic an excuse to rally up nationalist sentiment (his main source of power) is the only way to make him into any kind of threat. [Editor's note: Milosevic's popularity has increased greatly as a result of the bombings.] Lesson number two: there is no such thing as a "half-ass war." Whether you call it a "Cold War" or a "peacekeeping mission," a war is a war--A is A. To quote Ayn Rand, "When men are being killed by a foreign army in military action, it is a war, a whole war and nothing but a war--regardless of what temperature [or alleged purpose] anyone chooses to ascribe to it." And a war, by its nature, is fought to be won. If you don�t fight a war to win it, that does not mean it isn�t a war--it simply means you won�t win it. You can only lose: you will eventually have to withdraw your troops, after which the place will go to hell anyway. Such is the nature of "peacekeeping missions" and "containment." As in Vietnam, Americans in Kosovo are fighting the type of war which, by its very definition, cannot be won. They will not win if they force Milosevic to sign a piece of paper. Winning means you get to go home--which they won�t, because they�ll have to stay behind to enforce that piece of paper. (Nor will they win if they take out Milosevic: he is just the latest in a long line of power-lusters.) Lesson number three: men must fight for something or they will die for nothing. The Americans who fought in the jungles of Vietnam did not fight for freedom, they died for "democracy": the right of the South Vietnamese to "choose" between freedom and communism--as if it were only a "difference of opinion." If the North Vietnamese were more efficient and relentless than the Americans, it was because they fought for a moral ideal (albeit a thoroughly evil and irrational one), and not a "difference of opinion." They didn�t have to stop and ask, "What the hell are we doing here?!" What are we fighting for in Kosovo? We are not fighting for freedom. The Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) is just another gang that wants someone from their ethnic group in charge. If they succeed, they�ll simply oppress the Serbs. (This is called "national self-determination.") We are simply taking sides in an amoral tribal war, helping out whichever tribe is at a momentary disadvantage. But there are those who believe that the US has a moral obligation to keep peace and prevent genocide in Kosovo. I could say that Kosovo is no different than the tribal warfare taking place in Africa, and that it would be impossible for us to stop all these feuds (and immoral, by this logic, not to). I could say that one cannot end mutual ethnic hatred by taking sides, since this will only be interpreted as oppressing one race for the benefit of the other. (This is why NATO�s actions have actually increased Serb solidarity and the persecution of ethnic Albanians!) I could say that no amount of bombs can eradicate the tribal mentality that is the root of the fighting--that the people of the Balkans will see no peace until they learn to respect each other as individuals, and not as members of some racial collective--that people will not seek safety in groups when their individual rights are protected. I could say it, but I won�t. It is not (to paraphrase Hank Rearden from Atlas Shrugged) the particular policy that I challenge, but the moral premise. It is true that a free nation has the moral right to free the victims of tyranny--provided it uses a voluntarily financed and enlisted army (taxation and the draft violate individual rights), and establishes a free nation (the oppressed also have individual rights). It has a right to do so�but NOT a moral obligation. A free government�s only obligation is to protect the rights of its own citizens, and to respect the integrity of other free nations. Until it can do that, it has no business being the world�s "policeman." The US government is failing in its primary role. Saddam is still building bombs and threatening our oil supplies. China is stealing our secrets and buying off our government. Iran is still arming and harboring anti-US terrorists. Why are we still screwing around in Yugoslavia? The time has come to assert our real national self-interest and GET OUT NOW. Notes Notes |
