HITS and Kosovo

I'm extremely flattered that Samantha Power gave Heads in the Sand a favorable review in the New York Review of Books alongside Peter Scoblic's U.S. Versus Them (also recommended) so I feel bad quibbling, but it certainly wasn't my intention in the book to come across nearly as hostile to the NATO air strikes that secured Kosovo's de facto independence as her review makes me out to seem. As I wrote "despite the lack of UN authorization, the Kosovo War fit reasonably well into the liberal framework" which I think is what Power thinks as well.

My main concern with Kosovo was its impact on future liberal thinking as "a refusal to admit to any mixed feelings whatsoever about Kosovo or to delineate meaningful limits to the legitimate scope of humanitarian warfare" wound up distorting attitudes about both warfare and humanitarianism. It's the difference between Joschka Fischer, who has totally sound views about foreign policy, and Paul Berman who decided that -- contrary to Fischer himself! -- the logic of Fischer's life and politics was that he should support the invasion of Iraq.

Comments

How did it fit into the "liberal" framework? There was no evidence of genocide or massacres, just standard ethnic divisions and low-level clashes in a country that had genuine historical questions about whether it should be attached to Serbia or not. Now Kosovo appears to be an enclave for gangsters.

Posted by MQ | July 22, 2008 9:54 AM

That's fine, but I think you're pitching yourself a softball by not referring to her main criticism of how you characterize the Kosovo actions: "Yglesias wrongly implies that support for one war inevitably entailed support for the other; he also unfortunately lends credence to the surprisingly prevalent fiction that Bush invaded Iraq for humanitarian purposes." I think you should address that.

Posted by John Haber | July 22, 2008 9:59 AM

That's fine, but I think you're pitching yourself a softball by not referring to her main criticism of how you characterize the Kosovo actions: "Yglesias wrongly implies that support for one war inevitably entailed support for the other; he also unfortunately lends credence to the surprisingly prevalent fiction that Bush invaded Iraq for humanitarian purposes." I think you should address that.

Well, in the book I certainly don't say that support for one war inevitably entailed support for the other. If on Power's reading she thinks I implied that, all I can say is that I didn't intend any such implication. Others who've read the book will need to judge to what extent I wrote poorly and to what extent she's misreading.

As for the question of Bush's humanitarian motives, I think it's clear from chapter two and chapter seven (the latter titled "The Democracy Fraud") that I don't think of Bush as a great humanitarian. At the same time, I don't think it's tenable to deny that some proponents of the invasion had genuine, if badly misguided, humanitarian objectives.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 22, 2008 10:17 AM

i have not yet read Matt or S. Power. I'm looking forward to it. But the unintended consequences of the Kosovo intervention continue to spill out all over the Balkans, including reported mass expulsion of ethnic Serbs and Roma from Kosovo, and a very nervous situation around Tetovo, Macedonia; and Kosovo itself being quite far from economically self-sustaining.

So that game has not nearly played out, and historians may well view the Kosovo intervention differently from today.

A second question is whether Samantha Power and Matt endorse the bombing of non - military targets that NATO eventually fell back on.

Dan Tompkins

Posted by Dan Tompkins | July 22, 2008 10:23 AM

Outstanding essay from Mrs. Power. Your book was also superb too, Matt. What d'ya reckon? If she came calling would you serve under har as Undersecretary of State?

Posted by Adam Lewitt | July 22, 2008 10:53 AM

It's the difference between Joschka Fischer, who has totally sound views about foreign policy, and Paul Berman who decided that -- contrary to Fischer himself! -- the logic of Fischer's life and politics was that he should support the invasion of Iraq.

Great line, Matt. Best description of Paul Berman's position that I've seen!

Posted by scritic | July 22, 2008 11:02 AM

"... I don't think it's tenable to deny that some proponents of the invasion had genuine, if badly misguided, humanitarian objectives."

You know their true "objectives?" Who are they? Blair? Sen. Clinton? Bill Kristol?

Given the lack of protest against President Clinton's quiet war against Iraq by supporters of Bush's Iraq war (see the current London Review for a good description of that war) it seems misplaced to talk about genuine humanitarian objectives.

George Bush and humanitarian war -- how many oxymoron can exist in one phrase?

Posted by storm | July 22, 2008 12:29 PM

"... I don't think it's tenable to deny that some proponents of the invasion had genuine, if badly misguided, humanitarian objectives."

You know their true "objectives?" Who are they? Blair? Sen. Clinton? Bill Kristol?

Given the lack of protest against President Clinton's quiet war against Iraq by supporters of Bush's Iraq war (see the current London Review for a good description of that war) it seems misplaced to talk about genuine humanitarian objectives.

George Bush and humanitarian war -- how many oxymoron can exist in one phrase?

Posted by storm | July 22, 2008 12:30 PM

Two thirds of the American people and of what passes for the foreign policy cognoscenti (including a certain student blogger) favored the invasion of Iraq. They were badly mistaken. But in many instances humanitarian considerations were among their stated reasons for supporting the war. And since Saddam Hussein made the lives of many Iraqis miserable, if he permitted them to continue at all, the humanitarian rationale for the war wasn't implausible.

People with whom we disagree aren't necessarily irrational, wicked, or acting in bad faith.

Posted by Freud | July 22, 2008 12:56 PM

If it's not UN authorised, it doesn't fit into the liberal framework, and it's clownery to think that NATO is a plausible even part-substitute. If you think NATO can authorise war on Serbia, you think that North Korea or similar can authorise China's forcible repossession of Taiwan.

Posted by otto | July 22, 2008 2:31 PM

"storm":

Given the lack of protest against President Clinton's quiet war against Iraq by supporters of Bush's Iraq war (see the current London Review for a good description of that war) it seems misplaced to talk about genuine humanitarian objectives.

Given that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who annexed Kuwait, a sovereign member of the UN, and attacked Iran and committed genocide against the Kurds, actually used chemical weapons to clear villages, etc. etc. how was getting rid of him not humanitarian?

Plus he launched scuds at Tel Aviv during Gulf War I. Plus he tried to assassinate George HW Bush.

You're the type of person who believes Radovan Karadzic "wasn't that bad" either. Besides the Balkans aren't of "vital national interst."

As Jim Baker callously said, "we don't have a dog in that fight."

Just seems to me you don't have to travel that far to get to Iraq from Kosovo and Afghanistan. And the Empire didn't even install a proper puppet. He's insisting American troops leave in a year or so, which will probably happen.

Posted by Peter K. | July 22, 2008 4:49 PM

Was that an ironic link, Peter K.?

how was getting rid of him not humanitarian?

Try 'War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention'.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 22, 2008 5:12 PM

I was a proponent of "liberating Kosovo" and Clinton's campaign against Iraq.

In the hindsight, the first was a questionable policy, the second, outright wrong. Afghan intervention deteriorated into a dirty war with forgotten objectives (other than keeping NATO together a an alliance of hypocrites, even if not all members are equally hypocritical).

The intellectual wreckage is immense, although human suffering are order of magnitude larger.

NATO, as an alliance, can get away with any shit it wants. Thus unresolved existential question: what kind of shit do we want to make? Current consensus seems to be, humanitarian shit. Stench problem can be solved by applying a deodorant.

Posted by piotr | July 23, 2008 11:35 AM