Those who suggest ending NATO airstrikes aren't pro-genocide

This letter is in response to Jeff Heidman's letter in which he stated that he is tired of being told he doesn't know enough about Kosovo. He made the point that all anti-NATO commentary has stressed that anyone who is for NATO is ill-informed. He then challenged someone to explain what justifies the atrocities being committed today. I would like to make three points.

First, in my two letters to the Wildcat, which were both vehemently anti-NATO, I never accused anyone of being ill-informed. Instead, I accused the mainstream media of distorting the story.

Second, no one in the Wildcat has opposed the bombing of Serbia on the grounds that we simply don't know enough about the region to act. The arguments that have been put forward in the Wildcat thus far have basically covered three points: 1) there are no good guys and bad guys 2) bombing Serbia is illegal and 3) bombing is only making things worse.

If you are going to support NATO's actions, these are the arguments you will have to tackle; not the accusation of being ill-informed.

Third, there is no justification for the atrocities committed today. Those who oppose NATO's bombing are not in favor of letting atrocities continue; instead we argue that more effective and less violent measures are needed. It's easy to paint anti-bombing activists as being pro-genocide. But that couldn't be farther from the truth. Bombing is a kind of genocide, too.

Rachel Wilson
Graduate Student
Interdisciplinary program in second language acquisition and teaching