ton despisers . . . and ultra-sophisticatedrn’realist’ intellectuals who have divinedrnthat America has no interest in the Balkans.”rnIt was a more perilous momentrnthan when it seemed that Pat Buchananrnmight grab the presidential nominationrnin 1996: most Republicans, after all, werernnot Buehananites. But in 1999, most Republicansrnwere unenthusiastic aboutrnClinton’s bombing campaign. The editorsrnpulled their hair out when congressionalrnRepublicans asked the President tornconsult Congress by invoking the WarrnPowers Act. Kristol and Kagan arguedrnthat the congressional Republican part)’rn”hit bottom”—nothing can “cover up thernshame of that vote . . . the Republicansrndefined themselves as the party of defeat.”rnDuring the spring of 1999, Standardrnreaders got this message every week. Arndesperate hyper-Nictzcheanism ranrnthrough the magazine. “Win it.” Usern”All necessary force.” We must overcomern”self defeating preoccupation withrncasualties” which leads to “strategicrnparalysis.” Unlike the New Republic, thernStandard never took much interest in thernactual polihcs or peoples of the Balkans.rnThere was no fctishing o’er the promisernof “multicultural” Bosnia, little space givenrnto local reporting from the region.rnThe real struggle was o’er the hearts andrnminds of the American power elite. Asrnthe magazine put it:rnI’he struggle in Kosovo today isrnabout more than human suffering.rnIt is about more even dian Europeanrnstabilih and Nato’s credibilih’.rnAt stake is the single overridingrnquesHon of our Hme: will the UnitedrnStates and its allies have the willrnto shape the world in conformancernwith our interests and principles?rnIn this struggle, the enem- wasn’t Milosernic or the paramilitarist ethnic cleanserrnArkan, but Pat Buchanan, the Cato Institute,rnand die foreign-policv realists at diernquarterK’ National Interest. The Standard’srngreat fear wasn’t that Milosevicrnwould get awa- with suppressing thernKoso’o Albanians, but that all diose SunbeltrnRepidjlicans whose ranks filled thernHouse majorit)- would wake up and decidernthat sending troops and conductingrnmassic airstrikes in a part of the worldrnthat no one could find on the map sixrnmonths before was a little weird and thatrnthe wanted no part of an ideology whichrnadocated such overreach.rnBoth journals got the victory theyrnsought over the Serbs, without the needrnfor the ground invasion both claimed wasrnnecessary. The bombing forced Milosevicrnto withdraw his forces from Kosovo,rnwhich is now patrolled by NATO troopsrnand substantially controlled by the KosovornLiberation Army. Eighteen monthsrnafter the ceasefire, die Serb strongmanrnMilosevic lost an election and is nowrnawaifing trial at The Hague, rhe absurdit)’rnof the hvo journals’ contention thatrnMilosevic and Serb nationalism were thernonly real obstacles to peace in the Balkansrnis evidenced by daily press reports.rnBy the two-year anniversary of NATO’srnattack, the news from Kosovo was grim:rnAlbanian violence has driven most Serbsrnout of die province; the KIA has not disarmedrnand disbanded as Washington hadrnpretended it would; and after first beginningrnguerrilla operations in a buffer zonernof southern Serbia, the KLA is now fomentingrna civil war in Macedonia. Thatrnwar, many observers argue, has more potentialrnto spread and destabilize southeastemrnEurope tiian did Milosevic’s suppressionrnof the insurgency in Kosovo, andrnit woidd not lune been possible witiioutrnNATO’s actions.rnAs of this vTiting, die Weekly Standardrnhas been silent about this facet of thernapres-guerre. “Present Dangers,” a collectionrnof foreign-policy essa’s recendy publishedrnby Kristol and Kagan, contains surprisinglyrnlittle about the Kosovo war,rnconsidering what a dramatic departure itrnhad been for NATO to give up its 50-rnycar-old status as a defensive alliance.rnThe magazine has since returned to itsrnregular beat of castigating die Palestiniansrnand urging more aggressive policiesrnagainst Iraq and China.rnThe New Republic hasn’t entirelyrndropped the subject, but where there wasrnonce self-righteous passion—1956 andrnall that—now reigns a resigned wearinessrnwith all those messy Balkan nationalities.rnWriting about Serbian President VojislavrnKostunica’s electoral victor)’ over Milosevicrnand die resulting peaceful transfer ofrnpower, Leon Wiescltier described hisrnfeelings of “jovlessness of justice” andrnfound die jubilant Serb crowds “strange-rnIv unintoxicating.” This, after a free electionrnleading to the fall of a governmentrnthe magazine had only montiis beforerndescribed as die heir to die Third Reich.rnThe New Republic at least acknowledgedrndiat NATO’s famous victor)’ had broughtrnneither peace nor stabilitv’. Taking noternof the Albanian campaign against Macedonia,rnthe editors opined:rnIt is a harsh irony that the instigationrnof ethnic conflict in Macedoniarnhas been the work of the Alba-rnWercn’t the Albanians the mans.rnIS victims just yesterday? But thisrntoday, and Macedonia is not Kosovo.rnHere, “harsh irony” is a phrase of distancing,rndesigned to veil the fact that the magazinernhad engaged in years of shrill advocacyrnand ugly dcmonization, urgingrnAmerican bombing, invasion, and occupationrnof a region about which its editorsrnunderstood very little. Things didn’trnwork out like they had hoped, and it isrn”ironic.” Wliat now? The editors urgernthe Bush administration to make clear tornthe insurgent Albanians that it supportsrn”democratic principles.” That should dornthe trick.rnScott McConnell is a columnist for Taki’srnTop Drawer/New York Press.rnEDUCATIONrnWho’s Slave andrnWho’s Massa?rnby Robert WeissbergrnOf all the strange bedfellows thatrnpolitics attracts, one of the oddest isrnthe enduring liaison between the blackrncivil-rights establishment and white liberalrnacademics. One partner—the academicrnauxiliary—is most dittiful. It is alwaysrnthere: demanding legislation,rnconcocting dubious constihitional interpretations,rnjustifying quotas, or consolingrnstruggling minorify’ students. Criticizingrnthe civil-rights establishment’s agenda invitesrnthe anger of a swarm of outragedrnwhite professors. By contrast, the civilrightsrnestablishment takes academics forrngranted.rnWhat explains this enduring bond, especiallyrngiven its one-sided character?rnImagine if white academics treatedrnblacks as indifferendy as they now treatrnlabor unions. Racial-preference ideolog)’rnwould degenerate into simplistic demandsrnfor “a piece of die action.” Thernentire elaborate legal edifice woidd al-rnSEPTEMBER 2001/43rnrnrn