Fobotsco,
Chill out for goodness sake!
I wasn't attempting 'irony', merely pointing out that allied war aims in Kosovo were wider than toppling one man, whatever the Great Robertson might say. And that's not my 'arrogant' opinion, and I don't pretend to understand a situation as complex as that in the Balkans. I doubt that anyone does, although some, including Postman Pat, understand it better than I do. But (especially with Milosovic in the dock answering for his crimes) we might remember that Robertson is a consummate political operator, and has his own agenda. Your summary of NATO's war aims is slightly simplistic, I believe. You only have to look back at any of the public pronouncements by the Western leaders at the time. They were keen to avoid having the conflict seen as a war against the Serb people (naturally) and preferred to have an evil enemy 'bogeyman' in order to be able to 'personalise' and simplify the war for the voters. Don't they always? Isn't that why WWII was a war against Hitler, Mussolini and (until it was over) Hirohito? Desert Storm was about Saddam Hussein, etc. Yes these tyrants bear a disproportionate degree of rresponsibility and blame, but they are seldom 'solely responsible' since even dictators tend to be representative of broader political and/or interest groups within their consitituency. The limited aim of stopping ethnic cleansing in K'vo and of forcing a military withdrawal was stressed again and again.
I'd doubt whether Kosovo was about Milosovic any more than this little op is purely about Bin Laden. Isn't it about what Bin Laden represents, and about the organisation he leads, and the threat which he and that organisation (and perhaps even radical Islamic Fundamentalism) poses to us?
Even your own link says:
"NATO'S OBJECTIVES... were (for President Milosevic to):
* Ensure a verifiable stop to all military action and the immediate ending of violence and repression in Kosovo;
* Withdraw from Kosovo his military, police and paramilitary forces;
* Agree to the stationing in Kosovo of an international military presence;
* Agree to the unconditional and safe return of all refugees and displaced persons, and unhindered access to them by humanitarian aid organisations; and
* Provide credible assurance of his willingness to work for the establishment of a political framework agreement based on the Rambouillet accords."
Yes they wanted Milosovic to ensure all this was done, as his country's President, but to say that the war was about 'just one man'?
Incidentally, setting aside the genocide in which he was implicated - would we have felt compelled to act against Milosovic? Was ethnic cleansing and a total unwillingness to cede territory to people who wanted independence (including using harsh military action against those who aspired to nationhood) sufficient to put him 'beyond the pale'? Just wondering.....