what's left

NATO’s Kosovo Air War Redux

with 5 comments

By Stephen Gowans

NATO’s military intervention in Libya began, in theory, as an enforcement of a no-fly zone to protect civilians but has in reality morphed into an attack on civilian targets to undermine the morale of Gaddafi loyalists in order to turn them against the country’s leader.

NATO has struck Gaddafi’s residence repeatedly, and in recent days attacked a TV broadcast center.

If it sounds like a rerun of NATO’s 1999 air war on Yugoslavia, when NATO showered bombs on civilian targets in order to “protect” civilians, that’s because NATO has dusted off an old script.

The campaign over Libya, according to senior US officers, draws on lessons from 1999. (1)

Here was US General Michael Short 12 years ago on the logic of the NATO bombing campaign.

If you wake up in the morning and you have no power to your house and no gas to your stove and the bridge you take to work is down and will be lying in the Danube for the next 20 years, I think you begin to ask, “Hey, Slobo, what’s this all about? How much more of this do we have to withstand?” (2)

Short told The New York Times that the bombing campaign was based on “hopes that the distress of the Yugoslav public will undermine support for the authorities in Belgrade.” (3)

Here’s US General John P. Jumper today, who was commander in 1999 of US Air Force units in Europe.

It was when we went in and began to disturb important and symbolic sites in Belgrade, and began to bring to a halt the middle-class life in Belgrade, that Milosevic’s own people began to turn on him. (4)

Jumper says NATO is following the same logic in Libya today.

How NATO got away with bombing civilian targets in Belgrade in 1999 offers insight into how it’s getting away with bombing civilian targets in Tripoli in 2011.

First, then as now, no one was big enough and strong enough to stop them.

Second, NATO bamboozled enough people into believing Serb forces were slaughtering ethnic Albanians in Kosovo to win support for an intervention as the only way to avert a bloodbath. Sound familiar? The tens of thousands of corpses NATO ministers warned would be found scattered across Kosovo and buried in the Trepca mines, were never found.

Third, NATO simply made the definition of a military target so malleable that it could fit just about any site NATO planners wished to destroy. Roads and railways were said to be legitimate quarry, because they were used by military vehicles. Bridges allowed military units to move easily from one point to another, and therefore could be taken down as legitimate military targets. Radio-television buildings were fair game because they were deemed to be part of the enemy’s “propaganda apparatus” (which means, if we’re to apply a consistent standard, that The New York Times’ building is a legitimate target for any country the United States attacks.) Government buildings were part of the enemy’s command and control infrastructure, and as a consequence could be obliterated as lawful targets. And the schools, hospitals and people destroyed by NATO bombs that couldn’t be passed off as legitimate military targets were dumped into the convenient category of “collateral damage.”

Peter Ackerman, the moneybags who hobnobs with Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Gates on the US foreign policy elite’s Council on Foreign Relations, and who founded an organization to promote color revolutions, created a documentary about the downfall of Milosevic, called Bringing Down a Dictator. It credits so-called nonviolent pro-democracy activists—not NATO’s bombing of civilian targets to turn Milosevic’s supporters against him–with bringing about Milosevic’s ouster.

Maybe Ackerman’s definition of non-violence (and of dictator: Milosevic was elected in multiparty elections which continued to be carried out after he became president) is as malleable as NATO’s definition of a military target.

What’s clear is that NATO and the color revolution outfit Ackerman founded have the same goal: to sweep leaders of non-satellite countries from power in order to integrate their countries unconditionally into the global economy as Western vassal states.

If the goal can be achieved by bombing civilians to weaken their morale, NATO is up for it, as much today as it was in 1999.

1. Thom Shanker and David E. Sanger, “Nato says it is stepping up attacks on Libya targets”, The New York Times, April 26, 2011.
2. Washington Post, May 24, 1999.
3. New York Times, May 13, 1999. Cited in William Blum’s Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower.
4. Shanker and Sanger.

Written by what's left

April 27, 2011 at 10:42 pm

Posted in Kosovo, Libya, NATO

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The US is like the global plantation owner and other countries are the slaves on that plantation. These slaves work for a few scraps from the master’s table and are not allowed real freedom. They are kept down so that they always stay in an inferior and weaker state from the US master. Any country that tries to free itself from this global slave plantation system is isolated, demonized and attacked by any means.

    Paul

    April 28, 2011 at 12:20 am

    • That is an apt metaphor given that America was effectively founded as a slavocracy.
      After all, the USA’s “Founding Fathers” like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were all slaveowners, and Black chattel slavery was an integral part of the American economy.

      Today, the American Empire is a global dictator in everything but name.

      America invades and colonizes nations around the world. It overthrows or “regime changes” foreign governments that are too “uppity” and disobedient to Washington dictates. And America’s capitalist system imposes the USA’s brand of free market capitalism that is responsible for looting the world.

      But worst of all, this American dictatorship is able to get away with its crimes by disguising itself behind freedom, democracy, and liberty.

      Freedom itself has become the mask of imperial American tyranny.

      AR

      April 30, 2011 at 9:33 pm

  2. Well said Paul, and they strategically placed an articulate benign-appearing overseer in charge of the actions.

    The most effective influence has always been having someone who looks like us serving as a proxy for the agenda.

    Black Skin, White Masks.

    discipleofmaat

    April 28, 2011 at 1:20 pm

  3. Great article. The very ideal of humanitarian intervention is laughable.

    gainesvillereds

    April 28, 2011 at 6:45 pm

  4. “Third, NATO simply made the definition of a military target so malleable that it could fit just about any site NATO planners wished to destroy.”

    The Chinese were undoubtedly in furious agreement with that observation after their Close Encounter of the Third Kind with 3 GPS-guided bombs in Belgrade.

    Neil M

    April 29, 2011 at 6:09 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: