Shirking Duty

Robert E. Lee called duty the "most sublime word in the English language," and urged everyone to "Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.”

But as Julia Gorin reminds us, many fall short when faced with what needs to be done:

"By shining a light on our Kosovo mischief, I am merely doing my duty as an American. But there are Americans who have a greater responsibility than I to save the U.S. from this bipartisan treachery, Americans who should be most on the case at this eleventh hour: Serbian-Americans."

So, where are they? I don't count; I'm not an American citizen, just someone who's lived in this country for almost a dozen years. Besides, I've definitely not kept silent, what with having been a columnist for the past eight. Yet I'm an exception, rather than a rule.

Why is this? Julia has a theory:

"I understand the reasons that Serbs shy away from this duty. They want finally to be liked, and more than anything else to fit in; indeed, the modern Serb rejects his Serbhood. As well, a Serb knows he will instantly be painted with the “Oh, but this is coming from a Serb; of course you’d say that” brush. Notice this is never a consideration or stumbling block for the Serbs’ enemies..."

While true to a great extent, it's not the whole reason. I personally know people who fear that any sort of public expression of opposition to the current U.S. policy in the Balkans would have negative consequences to their careers, wealth, property, and even lives. I know people who believe their voice can't change anything. But they are saying something, with their silence: they are saying that their cause is not worth speaking out for, much less fighting for.

I, quite obviously, disagree.

Now, here's the real kicker: most of these Serbs who don't dare so much as whisper in public have no qualms about bemoaning the current situation in private, lamenting the state of the Serbian nation today and wishing for someone to step in and save it. Which brings me to the point I want to make, using the words of a brilliant American playwright:

"Look, if you think we're wrong... then I respect that. But if you think we're right and you won't speak up because you can't be bothered, then God... I don't even want to know you."

Ah Yes, Peacekeepers

I haven't said a whole lot in this blog about my experience in Sarajevo during the 1992-95 Bosnian War. I intend to, eventually - at a time and in a manner of my choosing. Today, however, I was looking for some maps showing the boundaries of Albania in 1941, after the Nazi invasion resulted in what Albanian sympathizers term the "first liberation of Kosova" (sic); while searching, I stumbled upon this:



Source:
Bosnian Army Offensive Operations in Sarajevo Region, June 1995 (238K)
Map N from Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 1990-1995. Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Russian and European Analysis. Washington, D.C. 2001.

What is this? It is the map of the infamous 1995 "summer offensive" by the Muslim-dominated ARBiH that was supposed to break the siege of Sarajevo. Even those most casually acquainted in military arts can see that the direction of Muslim attacks makes little sense: only the 16th Division, attacking from the north, is actually moving towards the city, yet it eventually gets rolled back. Instead of attacking northwards from the city to help the 16th, the 12th Division is striking out eastwards, to... nowhere. And the 14th Division is attacking eastwards as well, to Mt. Treskavica (a barren piece of rock that claimed hundreds of Muslim lives without the Serbs so much as firing a shot). The whole operation was a strategic fiasco, with massive casualties.

Now for the reason I'm posting this. Notice the starting positions for the 14th Division's attack, down south. Two of the arrows start out not from green-shaded ARBIH-controlled area, but from the "UN patrolled" blue area. This was territory captured by the VRS (Bosnian Serb army) in a 1993 counterattack, which threatened to cut Sarajevo off completely from the rest of Muslim-held Bosnia. The Izetbegovic regime howled for help from the West; NATO and the U.S. threatened to bomb the Serbs; Serb leadership offered to cede the territory to the UN peacekeepers and keep it demilitarized. Of course, the moment the Serb troops withdrew, ARBiH forces poured in.

Oh, and did I mention that at this point Sarajevo was supposed to be a UN-designated "Safe area"? Yes, alongside Tuzla, Srebrenica, Zepa, Gorazde and Bihac, Sarajevo was supposed to be a demilitarized "safe haven" for civilians. There's even a 20-kilometer "exclusion zone" for heavy weapons, clearly seen on the CIA map. But see, "safe havens" were only sacrosanct when Serbs violated them; if Muslims deployed tens of thousands of troops, artillery and tanks within those areas, that was just fine.

The hypocrisy is just sickening.

Just wait for them to die off, really

Reuters quotes the present KFOR commander, Lt. Gen. Xavier de Marnhac, from a briefing he gave in Washington yesterday (emphasis added):

In his briefing, de Marnhac also noted the average age of Kosovo's Albanians was 28, while the figure for Serbs was 54.

"In the mid to long term there will be some kind of biological end to the problem here because, you know, one of the population(s) will simply disappear," he said.

No people - no problem. Simple as that. It used to be called genocide, or "ethnic cleansing" (a term first used by a Kosovo Albanian official in a 1987 New York Times story). Now it's "biological end."

Want to take over a bit of territory? Easy! Breed like mad - a dozen kids per family, or more - then when you become a majority, launch a rebellion. If you plead genocide, you may get lucky and the Empire will fight an illegal war of aggression on your behalf, and give you the territory on a silver platter. Bonus points if you've managed to soak the host country for welfare benefits for five decades so you can support your breeding program, making sure all those kids had schools, hospitals, government-subsidized jobs, etc. Anything else would be a violation of their human rights, you know... Once you have the territory, all you have to do is abuse the natives to the point of "biological solution," and there you go.

Seriously, though, de Marnhac's remarks should not come as a surprise. This cold-hearted, bigoted thinking explains how KFOR has "protected" Serbs in the province since 1999 - basically by putting them in ghettos and waiting for them to die off. One must remember, KFOR's function was never to protect non-Albanians from the KLA, but to protect the KLA from the Serbian army and police. They looked the other way as KLA burned, looted, murdered, threatened, extorted, besieged, stole and otherwise abused Serbs, Roma, Turks, Gorani, and other communities in the occupied province, only stepping in when abuses became bad enough to warrant unwanted media attention.

But he is right, you know. Serbs cannot hope to hold Kosovo if they are not willing to live there. They cannot hope to hold Serbia itself, if they don't start having babies. That's one way to make sure de Marnhac's prediction never comes to pass.

A Tragedy of Errors

Đorđe Vukadinović of NSPM had an interesting take on the Kosovo crisis in his latest column in the Belgrade daily Politika. He sees the issue as an outcome of a series of mistakes, on part of Serbs, Albanians, the West... mistakes compounded by errors, compounded by misjudgments. Sure seems that way.

In the piece that I'm extensively quoting below (the translation is my own), Vukadinović lines up the trees, and a forest begins to emerge:

What this is about is a series of erroneous estimates and decisions, on part of many factors and over a lengthy period of time. First of all, the Serbs have generally underestimated the demographic problem of Kosovo, i.e. the skyrocketing growth of Albanian families, that - combined with pogroms during the Nazi occupation and systematic pressures in the half-century that followed - made the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija an absolute minority. Likewise, just before and immediately after WW2, Serbian authorities wrongly believed the problem of Kosovo could be solved through police repression; the Communist regime, starting in the late 1960s, went to the other extreme and attempted to pacify Albanians by giving them broad autonomy and quasi-statehood. Milošević wrongly believed that after reducing the autonomy and establishing a semi-police regimen in the province in the early 1990s he had solved the problem, leaving Kosovo in the hands of inept and corrupt local officials...

On the other hand, the West (that is, the U.S.) wrongly believed - assuming they did believe - that Kosovo was primarily a humanitarian problem, rather than a conflict of two irreconcilable claims, two ethnic groups and two nation-building interests (as well as several regional interests). They erred in bombing Serbia (FRY) because of Kosovo, in the absence of UN Security Council approval, and lacking any legal or sufficiently moral justification. They erred even further when they tried to cover up that error with a claim of "genocide against the Albanians" and their "Gandhi-like resistance", systematically covering up the facts about crimes, atrocities and inhumane treatment of the remaining Serbs in Kosovo.

Additionally, seduced by misinformation coming from their envoys in the field, the West miscalculated the degree of Serb interest in Kosovo, wrongly believed that "Koštunica is just bluffing“, that Tadić would agree to independence, and that Kosovo is "number five or six on the Serbian national priority list“. They miscalculated the Russian position and possible role in the Kosovo crisis, constantly telling Belgrade that Serbia cannot count on a Russian veto in the Security Council, that Putin would make a deal with Bush and that "the Russians will sell you out in the end." Worst of all, this sort of policy and the promises - direct and indirect - that they will get independence as "reward for their suffering under Milošević“, have made the Albanians so entrenched, they reject any offer that falls short of this, no matter how favorable, as unjust.

Finally, a portion of the anti-Milošević opposition took their propaganda about "Kosovo as primarily a democratic issue" too seriously, and contrary to experience and common sense began believing that the problem of Kosovo began with Slobodan Milošević and that it would end with his departure. Part of this opposition corps that came to power after October 5, 2000, saw Kosovo as ballast to be discarded as soon as possible, believing - erroneously - that this would be met with support, or at least acquiescence, by most Serbians, as they become dazzled with European stars and supermarkets. They were mistaken.

Everyone, therefore, erred, and now everyone stands to lose. Serbs most of all, but also the U.S., the Albanians, Western interests as well as the "European agenda" in Serbia itself; let alone the international law and order. I think many now see the status quo ante [2006] as a less-bad outcome for everyone. The question now is if anyone is at the controls, and if there is time for anyone to slow down or change the course.

(From "Is there a pilot on board?!" by Đorđe Vukadinović, 20 November 2007.)

Apples and Inflation

Why yes, it is cider season in Virginia, funny you should ask.

But no, this post isn't about them apples. It's about Apple computers and their price in Canada.

Wired magazine - which seems to have a grudge against Steve Jobs and Apple, for some reason - reports how Macs are still more expensive in Canada than in the U.S. (by $150 or so). Considering how the Canadian dollar is now actually stronger than its American counterpart, that's adding insult to injury.

However, they also mention a pretty credible speculation that Apple adjusts its international prices annually, sometimes winning and other times losing on currency fluctuations. And remember, the U.S. dollar is "doing a post-modernist impression of the last minutes of the Titanic" (as the GeekCulture forum poster put it so aptly). That's got to be the best visual description of inflation I've ever come across, by the way.

Canadians have a solution to this conundrum; they can head south of the border and load up on cheaper Apple stuff. If only Americans had a similarly simple way of compensating for the depredations of Empire...

Another Long War?!

In a sea of articles, commentaries and editorials I peruse daily, anything by William S. Lind always catches my eye. Unlike most imperial bureaucrats and their laptop-bombardier enablers, this man actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to war and strategy.

Today he offers a way to evaluate potential candidates for the next Emperor: "How do you propose to avoid a long war?"

What's wrong with a "long war"? Says Lind:

Sun Tzu said it succinctly: "There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare." Acceptance by any Presidential candidate of a "long war" or "persistent conflict" is an admission of grand strategic imbecility. Which, just possibly, ought not be the highest qualification for public office, all appearances notwithstanding.

Worse yet, America has already been through a long war - from its 1917 intervention in Europe to the 1990 "victory" against Communism (see here for why I put that in quotes). And the fruits of that?

In 1914, America was a republic with a small federal government, a self-reliant citizenry, growing industry, an expanding middle class, an uplifting culture and exemplary morals. By 1990 and the end of that long war, we had become a tawdry and increasingly resented world empire with a vast, endlessly intrusive federal government, a population of willingly manipulated consumers, shrinking industry, a vanishing middle class, a debauched culture and morals that would shame a self-respecting stoat.

Where will another long war leave us? What's left of America won't be worth a bucket of warm spit, or however you say that in Spanish.

Yet every "mainstream" candidate for the Throne of St. Abraham promises more war, more Empire, more of the same.

Of course, given the acceleration of history as evidenced by the 20th century alone, it won't take another 70 years for the said spitbucket transformation, but probably much, much less.

Don't you dare call it terrorism!

(cross-posted from Antiwar.com)

A Bosnian Muslim man was apprehended Monday as he tried to enter the U.S. embassy in Vienna, Austria with an explosive-laden backpack. Another Bosnian was arrested later Monday, suspected of being an accomplice.

It is nothing short of a miracle that the suspects were actually identified as “Bosnians” as opposed to “former Yugoslavs” or some such rubbish (as was the case with ethnic Albanians charged in the plot to attack Fort Dix earlier this year). Satisfied with this nod to the obvious, however, neither the Austrian government nor the media covering the event are willing to go any further. So the Austrians publicly state they “can’t say anything at the moment about a possible motive.” Indeed, Austria’s top cop (”general manager for public security”) Eric Buxbaum said “It is too early to speak of an Islamist background,” while Doris Edelbacher, identified by the AP as chief spokeswoman for Austria’s federal counterterrorism office, is said to have “played down speculation… that the thwarted attack may have been motivated by radical Islamic ideology.”

Because, you see, the wannabe-bomber and his handler were Bosnian Muslims, and that just can’t happen. The two suspects are Muslims? Check. There’s a jihadist imam in Graz, preaching jihad and murder of infidels? Check. The backpack bomb is the kind of device routinely used to blow up Israelis? Check. A Muslim prayer book is found in the backpack? Check. They are from where? Well, then, they can’t possibly be jihadists. Call off the search, boys, motive unknown.

What on earth could possibly be a motive for a jihad-style attack by a Muslim on a U.S. embassy? Jihad? Of course not! Out of the question! Never! Must be because… they didn’t process his visa request fast enough! That’s it! Perhaps he should sue the American government for causing him undue hardship; he wouldn’t be the first.

Already the mainstream press is saying that the main suspect has “sought psychiatric help” in the past, trying to suggest he was just a nutcase. Maybe there is something to it; but on the other hand, the fact that he panicked, threw the bomb away and tried to run, instead of blowing himself up, suggest that “Asim C.” is not mentally ill. I’m not so sure about those trying to spin his inept attempt at martyrdom as anything but.

If this is debate...

This Wednesday, The Yale Daily News reported on a panel discussing the "current struggle for Kosovar autonomy." Sure enough, what the panelists "discusses" was just how much the "Kosovars" (sic!) deserved their independence from evil Serbs, and how soon they would get it.

The article helpfully references the panelists' names (though without much in the way of background):

"The panel consisted of Yale professor Ivo Banac, University of Pristina professor Dastid Pallaska, 2007 Yale World Fellow Verena Knaus, 2006 Yale World Fellow Garentina Kraja, Laurie Ball LAW ’09 and Jonathan Finer LAW ’09."

Let's see... an ethnic Albanian professor (Pallaska), an ethnic Albanian journalist (Kraja), and a former Croat politician (Banac) round out the "Balkans" perspective. To be honest, Banac was probably the most impartial of the lot - but with this lot, that's not hard.

Continuing on: Knaus is a member of the "European Stability Initiative," a Brussels-friendly NGO run by Gerald Knaus (husband or brother?). The ESI is funded by numerous foundations and Western governments - and oh yes, NATO! Can't expect someone who ate from NATO's dish to criticize the Alliance for its illegal occupation of Kosovo, now can we?

Next up is Laurie Ball, a Duke graduate who did "community-building" in Bosnia as part of her "career in human rights." If that doesn't qualify her as an expert in international law, I don't know what would.(EDIT: I just remembered the name of a Patrick Ball, a pet "expert" of the ICTY. Could he be a relative?)

Finally, there is Jonathan Finer, who is actually a Washington Post reporter best known for being "embedded" with the 1st Marine Division in Iraq, but who has recently done a tour of the Balkans and produced a series of predictably propagandistic rubbish about Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo.

Now, according to the Yale Daily News, Law School Dean Harold Koh called “a better briefing than anything presented at the State Department.” I concur - in the sense that the putrid bilge regularly emanating from the State Department is hard to outdo. But I bet these brave panelists came close. Of course, the reporter only quotes Ball, Pallaska, Finer and Knaus; there's nothing at all from Banac or Kraja. But what is quoted is insipid enough.

Not surprisingly, there was widespread agreement about the inevitability and even necessity of independence, and the report (presumably drawing from the "information" offered at the panel) spoke of "more than 10,000 ethnic Albanians" killed. Only trouble is, this "fact" is nothing of the sort.

In the past, forums, panels and "debates" of this kind at various universities and NGO institutes at least tried to create a pretense of impartiality by inviting a token Serb (even better, an ethnic Serb with a serious case of neo-Jacobin Empire-worship). Now, if this is the state of academic debate , or even discussion, at one of America's most prestigious universities, it's no wonder the American public is so utterly deluded about what is actually happening in Kosovo.

Then again, didn't the current Emperor study at Yale?

The Last Best Hope

I first met Ron Paul in 2003, at a Mises Institute event in Auburn, Ala. I remember being impressed with him even then - a sentiment that has only grown stronger with time. As I've chronicled the actions of the American Empire over the years, I became convinced that Dr. Paul was that rarest of birds: an actual believer in the American Republic in an age when everyone's embraced the Caesars.

I can't vote for Dr. Paul next year; I'm not an American citizen. But if I could, I would. Because, as Vox Day so aptly puts it (my emphasis):

The choice is simple. If you want to live under an EU-style regime that is intent on invading and occupying other countries in the name of democracy for the foreseeable future, vote for any of the so-called major candidates. It doesn't matter which one.[...] If, on the other hand, you wish to live in a nation where the United States government is governed by the Constitution, you had better support Ron Paul. This may be your only opportunity, for it is entirely possible that this will be the last time such a choice is presented to you.

Kosovo Death Toll: Grossly Inflated

Many times over the past eight years have I been asked about the actual number of people killed in Kosovo during the NATO campaign of helping the terrorist KLA's separatist agenda. Back in 1999, U.S. officials bandied about numbers exceeding 100,000 and when pressed to provide evidence gleefully repeated rumors of Serb crematoria and corpse-choked mines.

After NATO occupation forces entered the province in June, however, the alleged genocide proved ephemeral. Just over 2,000 bodies were found, belonging to Albanians as well as Serbs, Roma, and others who lived in Kosovo, killed by NATO bombs, KLA terrorism, and yes, Yugoslav police and military. The total number of bodies found was 2,788, including both Serbs and Albanians (several mass graves were in fact those of Serbs massacred by the KLA). The International Red Cross is listing another 2,047 persons as still missing, "including approximately 500 Serbs, 1,300 Albanians and 200 members of other ethnic groups."

This is a far cry from "an estimated 10,000 people, mostly ethnic Albanians," which is used in every report about the occupied province, including and especially those dealing with the constant KLA terror against the remaining Serbs and other non-Albanians. The repetition is meant to provide a justification for NATO intervention, but it also tends to bolster the bogus case for independence claimed by the Albanian separatists. Little wonder, then, that all the mainstream media keep repeating the 10,000 mantra.

Last week, however, a U.S.-based intelligence publication Defense & Foreign Affairs, analyzed the Kosovo death toll fraud, and showed conclusively that the figure of 10,000 Albanians has been a fabrication all along.

Every man, woman and child the U.S. forces kill in Iraq is transformed into an "insurgent" by the magic of propaganda. That same propaganda turned every KLA terrorist the Yugoslav forces killed - in battles raging for a year before NATO bombers took the KLA side - into an innocent civilian, then multiplied that number by three, five, ten, a hundred. The same thing was done in Bosnia.

In both cases, numbers are meant to override reality. Iraqi body counts are supposed to provide a metric of "progress", covering up the reality of failure. In Bosnia, and later in Kosovo, numbers were meant to provoke outrage, anger and shock, blocking out rational thought and providing cover for aggression, occupation, and support of unsavory client regimes. The greater the deception, the bigger lie it required. Under the umbrella of those lies, the "democratic" authorities in Croatia accomplished what their Nazi predecessors could not, ethnically cleansing most Serbs; Alija Izetbegovic achieved his dream of forcing the Muslims of Bosnia back into Islam, this time of the Saudi variety; and the Albanians of Kosovo have at least temporarily restored the "Greater Albania"of WW2, and set upon eradicating every trace of Serb presence in the land.

Trouble is, what would have been possible a century or half a century ago - because who could find out the truth, safely locked away in classified archives? - is not so possible now. The lies are getting exposed after a few short years. Sure, a lot of the damage has already been done, and not all of it can be reversed. But the time between the lie and its exposure has shortened exponentially. And once exposed, it is just a matter of time and willpower before the edifice built on the lies is torn down. And maybe next time - for, given the human worship of violence, there will be a next time - lies won't be so easily believed in the first place.

Why you should support Antiwar.com

If you are sick of war and the Empire, of the arrogance, hubris, posturing, lies and deceit we are forced to listen to every day in the mainstream, "legacy" media that are dedicated to serving the Imperial idea, what are you to do?

Look at all the candidates for Emperor, already preening and posturing. They all want to be Bush, not beat him. The only candidate who actually wants to be a Constitutional President - Ron Paul - is being ignored by the legacy media, in their arrogant belief that if they can just deny the existence of something or someone, that something or someone would actually cease to exist. How is that different from that famous neocon sneer at the "reality-based community"?

I know times are hard. Because of war and the Empire, the dollar is worth less than ever before. You think it will be worth any more if there's a war with Iran soon? Oh, wait, you didn't know about that one? But Antiwar.com features news, analysis and opinion exposing the Empire's war plans every day... and they don't charge for it! All they ask is that you donate, however much you think it's worth to you.

What price truth? What price liberty?

Of course, I have a dog in this fight; Antiwar.com runs my own column, Moments of Transition, on Thursdays, so obviously I have a vested interest here. But if you donate - and you should - don't do it for me. Do it for the millions of Americans who oppose the war, who cherish liberty and reject the Empire as an abomination.

Do it for yourself.

"Terrorism? What terrorism?"

Just as one thinks things in the Balkans cannot possibly get any weirder, something comes along to prove otherwise.

Here's a one such find, via Slobodan-Milosevic.org: in mid-July, a leading Bosnian Muslim daily published a "news" story about the new official definition of terrorism in Bosnia, and its author.

According to Bakir Alispahić, a newly minted M.A., "so-called religious terrorism does not exist, and that therefore there can be no talk of Islamic terrorism."

Alispahić, once the top policeman for the Izetbegović regime, and later head of the Muslim government's intelligence agency (AID), was charged with terrorism in 2002 over "Pogorelica" - an AID-owned camp where Iranian agents were training Bosnian Muslim terrorists in 1996. A NATO raid uncovered "Iranian propaganda, terrorist training manuals, bomb making materials, and bombs disguised to look like children's toys."

He was acquitted after several key figures in the case were mysteriously killed. The Empire never pressed the "Pogorelica" issue, because exposing the Izetbegović regime's terrorist connections would interfere with its wartime propaganda of "Bosnians" as innocent victims of evil genocidal Serbs.

Adding insult to injury, Michael Bay's 1996 summer blockbuster "The Rock" opened with the protagonist dismantling a child's doll booby-trapped by fictional Serb terrorists...

But back to the "terrorism expert" Alispahić, who explained his motivation to Dnevni Avaz thus: "They are a result of my conviction that I was completely groundlessly accused of terrorism by certain circles. Had these forces managed to win and prove their accusations, my struggle and my contribution to the war effort, and ultimately the defence of our country would have been marred by terrorism, which never existed in Bosnia."

In other words, he defined himself out of terrorism and thus vindicated his efforts. "Scientific," indeed.

In the commission reviewing Alispahić's thesis were Smail Čekić (Muslim regime's leading "expert" on war crimes) and Nijaz Duraković (former chairman of the Bosnian Communist Party, who eventually rediscovered himself as a nationalist and joined Haris Silajdzic). Duraković told Avaz that "there is a tendency to declare B-H almost collectively terrorist, and the Bosniaks collectively Al-Qa'idah," so Alispahić's thesis ("proving" that neither could possibly be true) was so very important.

I was going to make a snarky comment about what passes for "political science" in Bosnia, when I realized that's precisely what this is: political science. Alispahić conjured a "scientific" definition to save his own miserable skin. Duraković and Čekić love it because it serves their agenda of defending "Bosniaks" from accusations of terrorism.

But Duraković's jibe about collectively labeling Bosnian Muslims as terrorists is disingenuous at best. There is no denying that terrorists were involved with the Bosnian Muslim jihad against Serbs and Croats, or that some Bosnian Muslims were terrorists, but insofar as I know, no one has ever called the entire Bosnian Muslim nation terrorist. Meanwhile, Duraković and other Muslim nationalist routinely label the entire Serb nation "genocidal." So Duraković was really engaging in projection here.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: so long as the Bosnian Muslims believe in their innocence and victimhood, and refuse to come to terms with the realities of the 1992-1995 war and the fundamental problem of Bosnia's existence (ethnic relations), there can and will be no peace in that country. As for terrorism, between Empire's denial and Muslims' own hypocrisy, Al-Qaeda appears to have a safe haven in Bosnia.

Liars, Cowards and Heroes

Over the past couple of years, Julia Gorin has done more in-depth coverage of suffering in Kosovo than I have done since 1999. She has that rare quality for a journalist: the ability to research the story, connect the dots, and back her claims up with hard evidence. Most mainstream reporters, by contrast, rely on "unnamed diplomats" and "respected analysts" who are actually government spokesmen and paid propagandists for whichever cause is the Official Truth of the day.

Back in July, Julia published a piece in the American Legion magazine revealing that the "victory" in Kosovo was anything but. She was immediately attacked by two soldiers deployed in Kosovo, claiming she was a "liar" and a "predator" who made up things and impugned the Soldiers (always with a capital "S") who served their country and protected "our freedoms" - such as, ostensibly, Julia's freedom of speech.

Let's set aside for the moment the obviously ridiculous notion that occupying a portion of Serbian territory on behalf of Albanian separatists in any way shape or form defends anything American, whether rights, interests or principles. In practice, one has freedom of speech in the U.S. so long as their voice isn't heard by too many. If there is the slightest danger of a dissenting view "infecting" the carefully constructed mainstream, the dissident is exposed to onslaught of "respectable" critics and pro-establishment types, dismissed as a kook or a paid foreign agent, ridiculed as a liar or a fringe extremist, etc. This is exactly what happened when Julia published her critique of Croatia's Ustasha revival; death threats and invective came at her from all angles (publishing emails from angry Croats calling her a "filthy Jewish bitch" or saying "we didn't kill enough of you" was a brilliant response, though).

Just to make sure she means business, Julia has a link on her page to Bruiser, her rather fierce-looking canine companion. Seems as if taking a look at his photo has a salutary effect on those who threaten her bodily harm.

Following the attacks by the two military bloggers, Julia has composed an extensive response, which is carried by FrontPage Magazine. She carefully documents every one of her claims, debunks the bloggers' assertions methodically, and in general makes them look like clueless idiots at best, or pathetic mouthpieces of officialdom at worst.

How someone can sit in Camp Bondsteel, in occupied Kosovo, and claim they fight for liberty is completely beyond me. How can someone claim to fight for American freedoms, and then take part in enabling the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo, which is as un- and anti-American an endeavor as it gets? Or could this be the knee-jerk "patriotism" of some folk who believe that questioning the motives and intentions of the Imperial government while there are troops in harm's way (by the way, that harm is likely to come from the Albanians they are protecting; how's that for irony?) is treason? It seems they have forgotten that their oath was not to a Fuehrer but to the Constitution of a Republic.

There are times when I wonder whether I would care so much about what has taken place in the Balkans had I not lived through it, or if I would be so passionate about the injustices heaped upon the Serbian people if I were not an ethnic Serb. Julia Gorin is neither. She's an American, who could have profited handsomely parroting the official line about evil, genocidal Serbs. Instead, she chose to put everything on the line for the cause of truth and justice. That is true heroism. That is the American Way. And those who sneer at her while pretending to be American patriots ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Storm, Remembered

August 5 is a national holiday in Croatia, "Homeland Thanksgiving Day." Once again this year, Croatia's leaders gathered in Knin (formerly the capital of the rebel Serb Krajina region) to declare that Serbs are to blame for the war, and that their suffering was their own fault.

Right; when Croats, Muslims or Albanians leave their homes, it's always "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" but when Serbs do the same thing, it's their own fault. Anyone see a bit of problematic reasoning here?

Croatia is currently governed by the same party that declared independence in 1991, wrote the Serbs out of the Constitution and accepted Ustasha (WW2 Nazi) symbolism in mainstream political discourse. Tens of thousands - including diplomats with families, no less - recently saluted Ustasha songs at a big rock concert in Zagreb.

Facts speak for themselves, gentlemen; where once were hundreds of thousands of Serbs, now there are almost none. They've been killed, expelled, or forced to deny their identity so that within a generation they will be more ardent Croats than Franjo "Founder of the Nation" Tudjman. What happened in August 1995 was the largest single act of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans to date. Nobody cared, because it was "just those Serbs."

Just so we're perfectly clear: when the Empire engages in aggressive warfare (the greatest international crime) for the sake of "human rights," it is only the "rights" of its allies, satellites, quislings and clients. Serbs, being none of that, are not considered human. And if they dare offer resistance, then obviously whatever happens to them is their fault.

I won't bother pointing out whose "logic" this resembles.

The KLA, Itself

Andy Wilcoxson of Slobodan-Milosevic.org has compiled a list of official KLA communiques, ICTY transcripts and other official documents, illuminating the nature of this terrorist organization. For anyone who wants to understand what really took place in Kosovo (and not the "righteous NATO ended ethnic cleansing by bombing evil Serbs and brought peace and democracy" horse-hockey the public has been fed for 8+ years), this is a must-read.

A KLA propaganda poster

Watershed

When Boris Yeltsin died in April, I almost wrote about it. Instead, I figured I couldn't do a better job than Justin Raimondo and decided differently. But in the draft I had put together was a thesis that at the time seemed far-fetched: that the 1999 NATO attack on Yugoslavia was what a straw that broke the camel's back, and soured Russia on the rising American Empire. I now regret not publishing that, because it has just been corroborated - and by none other than the most famed Soviet dissident!

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in an interview to Germany's Der Spiegel, says this:

When I returned to Russia in 1994, the Western world and its states were practically being worshipped. Admittedly, this was caused not so much by real knowledge or a conscious choice, but by the natural disgust with the Bolshevik regime and its anti-Western propaganda. This mood started changing with the cruel NATO bombings of Serbia. It's fair to say that all layers of Russian society were deeply and indelibly shocked by those bombings. The situation then became worse when NATO started to spread its influence and draw the ex-Soviet republics into its structure. [...] So, the perception of the West as mostly a "knight of democracy" has been replaced with the disappointed belief that pragmatism, often cynical and selfish, lies at the core of Western policies. For many Russians it was a grave disillusion, a crushing of ideals.

When Austria-Hungary threatened war with Serbia in 1914, Russia backed Belgrade. Not because it could handle a war at that point, or because such a course of action was in its best interest - arguably, neither was the case - but because in 1908 it had stood aside and allowed Vienna to annex Bosnia-Herzegovina in clear violation of the 1878 treaty that was supposed to create peace in the Balkans.

For modern Russia, 1999 was another 1908. They don't want another 1914. But the American Empire is acting like Austria-Hungary, even to the point of having an Austrian-born, Serbophobic U.S. ambassador in Belgrade...

Of course, the analogy only goes so far; even so, the Empire ought to realize that Moscow is really serious this time. As is Belgrade, custom-made polls notwithstanding. It is now clear that the 1999 war "lost Russia." Somehow, the worshipful embrace of Albanian peasants seems a bad bargain in comparison.

Finnished

Having witnessed the humiliating defeat of his proposal for an Albanian-dominated "Kosova" as a ward of the EU, former president of Finland and ICG board member Martti Ahtisaari told the Finnish Radio he would no longer be involved with Empire's land-grab from Serbia. He could contribute in an "advisory role," he told the media hopefully, but noted no one's asked him to do so.

The battle for Kosovo is far from over. Albanian separatists are still determined to have their way, and their allies - the governments in London, Paris and Washington - are just as determined to paint their 1999 war of aggression as a triumph of democratic peace. Turns out Serbia and Russia are just as determined not to let them, even though the Empire has constantly underestimated both. Maybe that's why it lost the staring contest at the UN.

Any which way things develop from here, the Finn is done. Finished. Now he just has to hope the Albanians won't ask for their money back, the same way they've been "asking" for land...

Questions You're Not Supposed to Ask

Readers often ask me about books that would help them get a better understanding of Balkans events, or libertarian thought. I eagerly direct them to writings about the latter, but sadly don't have much to recommend regarding the former. Today, however, I'm happy to do both.

Thomas E. Woods, a brilliant historian who has previously penned The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, has a new book out: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask.

I haven't read it yet, though I have ordered a copy. So, why do I recommend it? Because reviewer Kevin Gutzman wrote today on LewRockwell.com that "the two chapters on American intervention in the former Yugoslavia are among the book’s finest."

I haven't the slightest doubt that Professor Woods has put together a fine piece of myth-busting work here. I can't wait to read it!

The Definite Article

For eight years now, I have been publishing commentaries about the Balkans on-line. In that course of time, I have received innumerable requests from readers for one written volume that would help them understand what took place in that corner of the world and why they should care (or not). Such a volume does not exist.

However, something very close to it has just been published. On July 4th, most fittingly, online magazine American Thinker published Julia Gorin's superb dissertation on the "Balkans Quagmire" in the minds of Western observers.

Rich in analysis, primary and secondary sources, unimpeachable logic and sincerity, this is one article anyone even remotely interested in the Balkans should read. Needs to read. If, some day, a collection of essays on the Balkans crisis of the past two decades is published, I hope that some of my works make it in there. But I know that this essay of Julia's will.

Read it. Go.

What are you waiting for?

380,032

I ran across an interesting interview in todays' online edition of Belgrade's Glas Javnosti. Professor Svetozar Livada, author of a book on ethnic cleansing in Croatia, dares raise a taboo topic:

Croatia had 1,107 towns with Serb majority, and I systematically compared the situation from the 1991 census with that of 2001. From this I established that in the majority of towns with Serb majority the infrastructure has been completely destroyed. Not only have people been expelled, their property was destroyed as well... I've noted the destruction of the entire infrastructure: emergency rooms, art houses, warehouses, power stations, cemeteries... Ethnic cleansing in Croatia encompassed people, property and even real estate registries.

I went further, statistically analyzing the two hundred-plus cities in Croatia, and established that some 124,000 Serbs were expelled from places where there was no fighting, and that the same destruction was applied to their property. There isn't a single village where someone hasn't been killed or disappeared. In larger cities there were concentration camps, euphemistically called "collection centers," and in many cases people died there.

Statistics show that 10,000 people were expelled from their homes in Split, and 18,500 from Zagreb. At the Zagreb fairgrounds, there was a concentration camp at "Pavillion 22." Everyone pretty much knew what went on there. Some 200 people disappeared. Still, the largest number of people were killed in Sisak.

Any mention of Balkans wars in the Western media includes numbers: 250,000 (the false, grossly inflated number of war deaths in Bosnia); 8000 (the purported number of Muslims slain in Srebrenica in 1995); 10,000 (the number of Albanians allegedly killed by Serb forces, "estimated" by NATO sources). There's one number that's never mentioned: 380,032.

The 2001 census listed 380,032 fewer Serbs in Croatia than in 1991. As Dr. Livada's research shows, that number was brought about by actions "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."