By Barry Sheppard
When Washington led NATO into the war against Serbia, President Bill Clinton at first claimed that the Serbian people were not the target. After the first Serbian civilian casualties, he icily commented that he regretted the incident, but in a war such things happen. This was to prepare public opinion for what was to come — the wholesale attack on the Serbian nation and people.
When a bus was bombed at the end of March and 47 Yugoslavian civilians were killed, a NATO spokesman said he regretted the deaths, but, after all, the bus was on a bridge and a bridge is "a legitimate military target".
In a step-by-step escalation, the list of "legitimate military targets" continues to grow.
Civilians use roads? Too bad. Roads are military targets. Bomb 'em!
Civilians need electricity? The military also uses electricity. Bomb the power plants and electrical grid!
Civilians need petrol, oil and diesel for transportation of goods and for farming? So does the military. Bomb the oil refineries! Bomb the storage tanks!
Bomb the TV stations! They broadcast stuff Clinton and Tony Blair don't like, fer chrissake!
Civilians live in cities? The military is there, too. Bomb the cities!
Kosovars fleeing the ethnic cleansing look like they might be military? Bomb 'em first! Ask questions later.
The Chinese have taken a firm stand against NATO's dirty war? Bomb their embassy!
Bomb them back to the ruins they faced at the end of the second world war, says NATO Commander General Wesley Clark. In fact, he said, if necessary NATO will bomb them back to "1389", the year the Serbs were defeated and occupied by the Turks.
Thomas Friedman, the New York Times' foreign policy expert, who has close ties to both the Pentagon and State Department, spelled out what the US policy is in a piece in the May 11 issue. "I am sorry about the Chinese Embassy, but we have no reason to be defensive here", he wrote. "We are at war with the Serbian nation, and anyone hanging around Belgrade needs to understand that. This notion that we are only at war with one bad guy, Slobodan Milosevic (who was popularly elected three times), is ludicrous."
The US "goal should remain bombing the Serbs until they agree to a NATO-Russian force in Kosovo. If we can achieve such a deal ... Yugoslavia would be boxed in on all sides by either strong states or the international peacekeepers [sic].
"And once that happens, Mr. Milosevic can stew in his own hatred. In fact, I can think of no greater punishment for the Serb people ... than having to live with him forever."
Friedman began his article foaming at the mouth against Jesse Jackson, the three US soldiers captured by the Yugoslavs who were then released and the Chinese — reflecting, no doubt, the fury of secretary of state Madeleine Albright:
"Is everybody done now?
"Jesse Jackson, are you done making a fool of yourself, praying together with the demented Serbian leader and mucking up American policy by flying into Belgrade to get out three US POW's — as if they should be our top priority now? Network and cable television, have you shown us enough footage of the US POW's, telling us about each scratch they got and how they spent their days? Will you also keep us posted when they sign their book contracts and announce their Web sites? Chinese protesters, have you gotten it all out of your systems, or would you like us to really set off a riot outside the US Embassy in Beijing by announcing no more visas to America for Chinese?
"Can we get back to the war now ?"
A Times reporter on the spot in Podujevo, a small town on the Serb-Kosova border, did report on the impact the war is having on the people. He says Milos Savic, the civil defence officer of the town, "described how a friend and neighbor, Dragan Bubalo, was killed in a misdirected NATO cluster bomb attack on a village called Merdare near here, blown off the road in his Ford Sierra. [Why 'misdirected'? After all, roads are 'legitimate military targets'.] This reporter had visited the scene a few hours after the attack and remembered the car, with its bloody interior.
"'I had to go to the hospital to identify him', Mr. Savic said. 'I washed his body and shaved his face and I buried him.' Mr. Bubalo was single, and Mr. Savic visits the dead man's mother, Mica, nearly every day. 'Her husband is dead and she has no more sons', he said. 'She's crying and yelling every day.'"
The mayor of Podujevo, Milovan Tomcic, told the Times reporter about the impact of the bombing on the town. "Mr. Tomcic is especially angry at the destruction NATO bombing has caused to bridges, highways and water, electrical and communications systems, as well as to warehouses for food and fuel needed for transportation and agriculture. 'The damage is unbelievable', he said flatly. 'There are no phone lines. There is no media. There is no way to address the people. We can't get food to them or water or diesel for farming. And just now the most important thing is to save the people, to give them enough food and medical protection, to avoid an epidemic.'
"The municipality is preparing vaccinations against dysentery, hepatitis and typhus fever, he said. 'Summer is coming, and there is not enough clean water.'"
Multiply this description by the hundreds of other towns and cities that have been bombed.
The frustration and anger expressed by Friedman reflect the dilemma Washington faces. Bombing alone has never been enough to defeat a foe. Troops on the ground would have to be used to occupy Kosova. But, Friedman writes, "we do not have the allies, the national will or the national interest" for sending in ground troops.
Angered by the fact that all Serbs, including those most opposed to Milosevic, don't like being bombed and have rallied to defend their country, Washington sees them all as the enemy.
Reading between the lines of Friedman's article, his hope is that the Russians would help occupy Kosova when Milosevic, under pressure of the bombing, agrees to a NATO-Russian occupation force. Milosevic would be left alone in Serbia. But it is by no means assured that Russia will agree to do that. For now, all Friedman can propose is to continue the bombing and enlarge it to attack increasingly the civilian population.
This puts Washington between a rock and a hard place. Attempting to obliterate Serbia will eventually produce revulsion in Europe, and the NATO alliance could crack. Accepting a humiliating defeat and abandoning the war would have the same effect. In that case, US power in Europe would be sharply reduced.
The most dangerous possibility is that Washington, faced with these choices, could decide that its only way out is to send in the ground troops. This would almost certainly bring in other countries. Russia would be under tremendous pressure at least to send arms and other aid to Serbia. A wider war would could lead to — what?