April 28, 1999

Fly-over War

Washington is at war. Sort of.

There are few signs in town that US forces are blasting away at buildings and people and trucks and television studios a continent away. The subway is jammed with spring tourists, and flocks of students from across the land clog the turnstiles. Limousines with NATO license plates are zooming through the streets. (Where are the black helicopters?) In the hallways of the Capitol, the air is free of tension or worry. Many lawmakers do not feel compelled to address the matter. "He didn't say anything about Kosovo this week," an aide to a Democratic Senator notes, "and he hopes not to say anything next week." It's not a make-believe war, but close. No casualties (for us), just video footage. The wonders of a one-superpower world, in which US military officials hail the era of "asymmetrical warfare." (That means, We hit Them, They don't hit Us.) And sloppy thinking is everywhere; with such a war, it is all-too affordable.

Paramount in this category is the Clinton Administration's primary assumption regarding Kosovo: initiate a spotty bombing campaign against a thug conducting genocidal outrages and rule out troops, and somehow that will benefit the victims of his wrath who are caught in a hellish nightmare on the ground. Last week, Major General Charles Wald, a Pentagon briefer, conceded, "I don't think NATO's air" -- that's military talk for the bombing assault -- "has stopped [Milosevic's ethnic cleansing] at all." An admission of failure? Wald, vice director of strategic plans and policy, hung in there: "NATO's mission, once again, is to reduce Milosevic's army's capability to do exactly what I showed you in that picture [of a Serbian attack on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo], so we're going to continue to do that....Probably the best thing we can do with air is defeat his army so they can't do that in the future, and I think we're going down that path." That's different from the original sales pitch for this war. Instead of deterring Milosevic and protecting Kosovars here and now, the bombing, slated to continue into the summer, is intended to prevent a repeat of this awfulness. But will there be any Kosovars left to help?

The cravenness of the Clinton policy shines brighter each day. As retired Admiral Eugene Carroll, the deputy director of the Center for Defense Information, said, "It is impossible to control military and political realities on the ground with air power alone.... We can destroy, punish and kill. But control and protect the Kosovars? No." Yet the Clintonites bathe in blitheness, indifferent to the fallacy of their folly and insistent success will show. "It seems doubtful that air power alone can succeed," says Anthony Cordesman, the former Pentagon official who became a war-pundit during the Gulf War. "NATO may well have to carry out some kind of ground option if it is to reintroduce the refugees back into Kosovo and give them security. It will then have to support a major nation-building exercise in Kosovo that also has major ground, military aid, and economic dimensions." Yet you don't have to be a military man to know which way this war blows.

Those who believe that Clinton rushed to semi-war too precipitously and that the bombing was a profound miscalculation and a classic Clinton action -- profess compassion, eschew a commitment that matters -- almost had to salute the NATO allies who, at the NATO birthday shindig last week, pushed a reluctant Clinton Administration on the question of ground forces. (Whoops, there goes another Clinton promise.) Sending in the troops at least would be consistent with the avowed mission of rescuing ethnic Albanians in Kosovo from Milosevic's murderous henchmen. Bombing from afar, as General Wald acknowledges, has flopped.

The Clintonites have a moral obligation to the Kosovars, and that is more important than preserving NATO credibility, taking out Milosevic, or any of the other justifications offered for this war. This obligation -- which the entire United States bares, thanks to the rash decisions of the President and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright -- can be met in one of two ways: troops or negotiations. (Even if Milosevic were to surrender in response to the "air", there would still have to be talks regarding a settlement.) Before troops are dispatched, Clinton ought to try a kick of diplomacy. NATO should halt the bombing for several days. After all, the aerial attack is not doing much at the moment to stop the expulsions and executions. Washington ought to recruit the UN and the Russians to take a swing at cobbling up a deal that would start with a cease-fire on both sides. (At the end of last week, NATO did move to involve the UN -- not as a deal-maker, but as an endorser of NATO's position -- and belatedly recognized Russia's role "in the search for a solution.") With a deployment of troops requiring weeks of preparations, a cease-fire offers the only chance of immediately improving conditions for ethnic Albanians still in Kosovo. If negotiations can be facilitated, the Clintonites ought to cast aside the demand that NATO take the lead in policing a post-accord Kosovo. (The Rambouillet peace agreement Milosevic wouldn't sign called for NATO forces to have free run of Yugoslavia and to be exempt from its criminal laws. Provisions like that are deal-killers.) Instead, an international force, with Russian participation, can be assembled under the auspices of the UN or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Senator Max Cleland, a Georgia Democrat who lost his legs and an arm in Vietnam, has called for a cessation of the bombing and a new attempt at negotiations. "War by increments gets people killed," he says. If a bombing freeze and negotiations do not pan out -- Milosevic, an evil fellow, might prefer war to resolution -- the bombing can resume. And troops can follow, if Clinton and Congress decide the Kosovars are really worth the cost.

At present, Clinton is striving to be a wartime leader, without going all-out. Is he hoping his management of a serious crisis will counter his image as a low-down, lying Lothario? If so, he is not the only war-profiteer in Washington. House Speaker Dennis Hastert says that the Kosovo operation proves military spending has been reduced too much. Is that a non-sequitur? Nevertheless, congressional Republicans have been plotting to add $6 billion to $12 billion to the emergency spending bill the White House sent to Congress requesting $6 billion for the costs of the Kosovo operation. If GOPers want to grant the military more billions for non-Kosovo activity, they ought to do it by the book. But they prefer to duck budgetary restrictions and fatten emergency spending legislation with non-emergency items. This is an underhanded manoeuver, showing the hypocrisy of the party that preaches fiscal restraint. But that is the GOP's MO. In October 1998, the Republican-led Congress stuffed $7 billion in pork and pet projects into the White House's emergency appropriation bill that asked for $1.1 billion to remedy supposed deficiencies in military readiness. And it's not as if the Pentagon has been shortchanged this year. In January, Clinton increased its budget by $12.6 billion. A few weeks ago, the Republicans approved a budget bill that accepted this raise and tossed another $8 billion at the military.

While they scheme to use Kosovo to beef up the Pentagon, Republican leaders in Congress have thwarted a move to put Congress on record on the war. They do not want GOP members to be compelled to take a firm position on the "Clinton-Gore war." Most Republicans would rather voice concern and let the White House take the heat if there is no light at the tunnel. (For the time being, it looks as if there isn't even a tunnel.) So the Republicans shirk their constitutional duty -- it's up to Congress to authorize war -- but they don't mind trying to cash in on the conflict for their pals in the military. Their stand: let's throw taxpayer money at the military but assume no accountability for how the Pentagon uses it. And in another abandonment of responsibility, two Republican Senators -- Pat Roberts of Kansas and Ted Stevens of Alaska -- both said they would vote for funds to support the military action in Kosovo but would not support significant funding for rebuilding Yugoslavia after the war. Their slogan: money for war, not for peace.

Another reckless idea being pushed by a Republican is the arming of the Kosovo Liberation Army. Senator Mitch McConnell has assumed point on this, with Senator Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat, riding shotgun. Their proposal is an on-the-cheap alternative to Clinton's bombs-alone policy. Just sprinkle $25 million on the ragtag force and -- presto! -- watch it beat back the Serbian army and bring freedom and democracy to Kosovo. One problem with the plan is the KLA. The group, according to various published reports, has been linked to Islamic fundamentalists and drug smugglers. Some of its founders and leaders were associated with the brutish Yugoslavian secret police. KLA members have called for a Greater Albania; they might not be satisfied with only control of Kosovo. When the democratic opposition in Kosovo tried to set up an armed branch, the KLA killed the branch's leader. Only a year ago, the State Department was labeling the group a terrorist outfit.

McConnell has brushed aside criticism of the KLA, noting "I don't think we have to do a background check any more than we did on the contras." Sounds great. Flood this conflict-ridden region with more weapons and arm extremists who have no proven allegiance to democracy or pluralism. Who else supports this? Steve Forbes (who if he truly believed in the cause could send $25 million of his own to the KLA) and the Heritage Foundation. Geraldo Rivera also is keen on the KLA. When you're thousands of miles away from the action, it's easy to play general or, in Clinton's case, air marshal.

Darwin Made Me Do It

In the aftermath of the high school massacre in Littleton, Colorado, there was the predictable blame-game. (How inconvenient it was for Charlton Heston and his NRA that they had scheduled their national convention in Denver this week.) The denunciations of Hollywood, television, the Internet, popular music and video games were de rigeur -- as were the cries of the religious right that school violence stems from the 1962 Supreme Court decision to ban prayer in public schools. Within this highly-competitive world of soundbite scowling, the Reverend Jerry Falwell -- scourge of Teletubbies and self-proclaimed expert on the "Jewish male" anti-Christ -- managed to distinguish himself. He pointed a chubby finger at evolution and abortion. "The culture of death flourishes in the abortion-rights community that attempts to convince children there are few consequences to casual sex." I know several leaders of the abortions-right community, and I have never heard a single one of them -- or any other advocate of abortion rights -- tell children that casual sex is just dandy and carries no consequences. Let's see Falwell's evidence. It is doubtful that the Trench Coat Mafioso who committed this diabolical deed were under the influence of Ms. magazine. "Another fundamental cause of the disregard for human life in the hearts of our youth is the teaching of evolution," Falwell huffed. "Children are taught that they are higher forms of animal life, created by chance -- not by a Divine Creator." No wonder Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went batshit. It was the science teacher's fault. But wait a minute. Falwell is giving animals a bad rap. How many animals mindlessly slaughter members of their clans for sport? It appears only representatives of our species commit such actions. Given that, one could assert that we have something to learn from the non-Divine creatures of the world. Yet Falwell wants to teach creationism in schools. In other words, guns don't kill, textbooks do.

Dan Quayle's Historey

In the previous installment of this column, I poked at Dan Quayle for emitting a historically inaccurate soundbite that compared Slobodan Milosevic (favorably!) to Ho Chi Minh. I doubt this will shock many readers, but one could run a weekly feature that tracks Quayle's historical illiteracy. Appearing on Chris Matthew's Hardball last week, the GOP's Boy Not-So-Wonder held Bill Clinton up to Richard Nixon and found the current President lacking. Had Nixon not resigned during Watergate and, instead, fought impeachment, Quayle asserted, he "would have prevailed in the Senate and the American people would not have been for the removal of him from office." Quayle was trying to make the point that Nixon possessed a sense of shame and Clinton does not: "Richard Nixon had a conscience and he did always what he thought was in the best interest of the American people. He put the people's interests ahead of his own political interests at that time. Bill Clinton did not do that." It's hard to argue with Quayle's assessment of Clinton. But Nixon was acting in the public's interest when he okayed the Watergate coverup? If Quayle bothered to pick up any book on Watergate before spouting, this graduate of DePauw University would have learned that Nixon resigned only after he was visited by a delegation of Republican Senators bearing bad news. Led by Senator Barry Goldwater, the eminent Republican, this heavy-hearted group trundled over to the White House on August 7, 1974, to inform Nixon there were more than enough votes in the Senate to convict him. Goldwater reported that Nixon had at most ten supporters in the Senate -- and six of them were iffy. Only after this session did Nixon decide to resign. He did not depart office out of decency, nor to spare the republic any trauma, but to save himself from becoming the first president to be found guilty of impeachment charges. Quayle is equally wrong regarding popular sentiment at the time. Five days earlier, a Louis Harris poll showed public opinion favoring impeachment 66 to 27 percent.

Nixon bailed when his political future became obvious. Quayle is too ignorant to do so.