Thirty years later, when the order was given for the U.S. AirrnForce and its assorted European minions to attack Yugoslavia, itrnwas not issued following a declaration of war by Congress forrn”the common defense of the United States,” Nor was the orderrngiven by the President as a means of repelling a sudden attackrnon America b}- a foreign aggressor, or as a measure intended tornrescue Americans abroad from unexpected peril. The attackrndid not even follow the pattern set in Korea and Vietnam (thatrnis, it was not initiated by unilateral presidendal action). OnrnMarch 23, the order to commence hostilities was given to anrnAmerican general by NATO’s secretary’ general, who directedrnthe supreme allied commander of Europe to initiate air operationsrnin order “to support the political aims of the internationalrncommunit}’.”rnWe are not dealing merely with another instance of postmodernistrnnewspeak, but with a fully developed theoreticalrnconcept. The Clinton Doctrine is rooted in the bipartisanrnhubris of Washington’s foreign policy “elite,” tipsy on its ownrnbrew of the “world’s last and only superpower” and “indispensablernnation.” Albright, Berger, Cohen & Co. have their preferencesrnwrapped in the rhetoric of the interests of the world, notrnof America itself For the world’s sake, we must take up the burdenrnof “benevolent global hegemony,” as the world’s chief guarantorrnof peace, executor of justice, and champion of democracyrnand freedom.rn”The international community” is now equated with thernUnited States just as the Fraternal Alliance was identified withrnthe Soviet Union. Never mind that China, India, and Russiarnare not on board: This “community” is of a mystic kind, blessedrnby the Absolute Good of democracy, human rights, and openrnmarkets. Mere numbers —of states or of people in them—dornnot matter. As for the democratic credentials of a government,rnthey are easy to establish. According to the Clinton Doctrine,rndemocratic governments act in accordance with “the will of therninternational communib,,” When they do otherwise, they becomernipso facto undemocratic, and liable to punishment.rnWhat form will the Clinton Doctrine take? The rules arernsimple: Washington is the prosecutor, judge, jury, andrnexecutioner. Legal formalities are passe, and moral imperativesrn—never sacrosanct in international affairs — are replacedrnby situational morality, dependent on an actor’s position withinrnthe superpower’s value S}’stem. The less logic and predictabilifyrnon this point, the stronger the position of Washington. Deviantsrnshould, and do, feel constantly under threat. Minionsrnwho submit are able to enjoy the blessings of Double Cheeseburgers,rnChuck Norris movies, and credit-assisted purchases ofrnF-16s.rnThe resulting edifice hinges on the continuing technologicalrnand military superioritv of the United States, not on its moralrnauthority or political magnetism. America is obeyed because itrnis feared, not because it is liked. This enables the regime inrnWashington to act as it deems fit, without legal or moral restraintsrnand with total impunity. Its minions are painfully awarernthat it is more advisable to share in the triumph of brute forcernthan to attract suspicions of disloyalt)’. They are thus additionallyrncorrupted by being cajoled to become America’s accomplices,rnrather than its mere vassals. The victims are expected tornunderstand that resistance is futile; the alternative, from lastrnMarch onward, is to get “Serbianized” (in the same sense thatrnKoventrieren was used by the Germans in the aftermath of thernLuftwaffe’s visit to Coventry in 1940).rnNot all is lost, however. As a Russian commentator has pointedrnout, the Clinton Doctrine suffers from the same problem asrnthe Brezhnev Doctrine before it. However costly for the defender,rneach act of resistance—Afghanistan in 1979, Serbia inrn1999—undermines the attacker’s modus operandi. If resistancernis shown to be possible, America’s image of hegemonistic invulnerabilityrn—which allows it to ignore or violate internationalrnlaw, traditional morality, elementary logic, humanity, commonrndecency, and justice —is also subject to doubt. An act of resistancernmay shame others into action —or at least into freernthought, which is even more dangerous —in defense of theirrnforgotten rights and subdued sovereignty.rnBehind Washington’s fagade ofrnarrogant might, there is a morallyrnbankrupt, intellectually challengedrnquasi-elite, incapable of producingrnanything good, beautiful, or true.rnThe monolithic gloss applied by America’s allies, like that ofrnBrezhnev’s allies in the Warsaw^ Pact, conceals a potential volcanornof popular discontent. After 1968, just beneath the drabrnsurface, anti-Sovietism was rampant throughout the Sovietrnbloc. The mood in Germanv, France, Italy, and Greece is remarkablyrnsimilar today. The rot which is so comprehensivelyrnembodied in the Clinton presidency may take its toll soonerrnthan we think. Behind Washington’s fagade of arrogant might,rnthere is a morally bankrupt, intellectually challenged quasielite,rnincapable of producing anything good, beautiful, orrntrue —not a sound base for the imperial project. But foreignrnpolicy reflects domestic policy, and the acquittal of William JeffersonrnClinton by the U.S. Senate —ostensibly a domestic issuern—has global implications. If he got away with all that atrnhome, there is nothing he is not capable of doing abroad—especiallyrnnow that he is neurotically obsessed with “his legacy.”rnThe lives and property of hundreds of thousands of Serbs andrnAlbanians are nothing compared to the recovery of Clinton’srn”credibility.” To paraphrase Madeleine Albright: “[T]he price,rnwe think, is worth it.”rnObserving the sadistic pulverization of Serbia is painful, butrnat least it should lessen our anguish over the ongoing collapse ofrnthe “civilization” capable of doing it. There is some relief inrnthat. NATO’s war should make us less upset over each newrnminaret in Bradford or Berlin, each new course in literary deconstructionismrnat Yale, and each new recruit to the “gay” barsrnin San Francisco. This is less and less a civilization worth saving.rnFrom this “post-Christian,” demographically moribund,rnspiritually arid, sexually ambiguous, utterly crippled shadow ofrnits former self, only more lies and more humanitarian bombingsrnare to be expected. So be it. From the distant descendantsrnof the encroaching new barbarism, there may yet emerge—onernday in the new millennium —new cathedrals, new Shakespeares,rnand new Bachs. -crn24/CHRONICLESrnrnrn