Kosovo paradigms

Some discussants on the Kosovo crisis have tried to link the NATO action
to a larger, Western geopolitical agenda of expanding political and
economic hegemony.  Making this link has generally involved the
torturing of reason.  For example, though the violent conflict that has
all the ear-markings of a disaster politically and economically for the
US and it’s Western Allies, some would have us believe that this is a
part of a “rational” plan for political and capital expansion. Other’s,
like Edward Said, apparently believe the NATO countries are acting
“irrationally” to show the world just how crazy they can get in order to
defend their hegemony. These are interesting comments. But they ignore
certain facts (e.g., the pre-capitalist roots of the conflict, or some
of the “big business” Republican opposition to US involvement to name
two.)

It may be interesting to some to do a kind of motivational psychology of
whole governments, (or even whole regions of the world like “the West.”)
but I prefer to examine the motivational politics a little closer to
home. Example:  take an academically minded “progressive”
political-economist or sociologist.  To be thought of as smart and
having something worthwhile to say, he must create and maintain an image
as a progressive social critic.   This is part of his personal identity,
and how he will make his living.  He, more than most, has an interest in
putting forth a “critical analysis” of the current crisis Kosovo. The
critical lens he overlays upon the crisis is, in fact, a mish-mash
paradigm of neo-Marxist and world systems theory.  The resulting
"explanation" of the crisis is predictable.  Though he makes objections
against about Milosovec’s actions, he reserves serious moral
condemnation for Western capitalism and the regimes that support it.
(Perhaps, in his mind, the only war worth fighting is the revolution
against capitalism.) Thus, anti-Western capitalism provides both a ready
explanation and ready  way out.

This kind of reminds me of the way I used to think in my left days.
When people talked to me about Stalin's atrocities, I would attribute it
to Western propaganda, and the western encouragement of  simple-minded
and aggressive ethnic nationalism in the USSR that the CCCP was forced
to dealt with.  Thus, Uncle Joe had been forced to fighting some
internal battles, so I reasoned.   I couldn't see the forest for the
trees.

Call me Pollyanna now.  Sometimes politicians actually do things because
they believe them to be the right thing to do.  And often, the things
they do work at cross-purposes, and this is because there is no long
range master plan for global domination. I know this doesn’t fit well
within some of the grander political-economic theories.  But maybe it’s
time to question the individual’s motivation behind making reality fit
the model.