Clark's ultimate Kosovo Comeback... ZERO US CASUALTIES

[ShaneGR]

That's right, ZERO! Stick that in your WWIII pipe and smoke it.

[JI7]

1. also

bill clinton never presented it as a national security thing. it was always humanitarian mission. that's one big point you have to bring up when the right wingers say if you objected to iraq because it wasn't a threat why support kosovo. just say bush did not present iraq as a humanitarian mission. the french brought this up at the un. i wish more was made of it. and bush didn't want it to be humanitarian because then he would have been asked about africa and othe rnations which right wingers are against. and slobodon milosevich was caught and is in prison and going through a trial. unlike osama and saddam.

[ShaneGR]

2. The odd thing is

All the people posting the right-wing propaganda on Clark don't tend to be right-wingers. Most of the time they're Kucinich or Dean supporters. And I like Dean and I've kind of warmed up to Kucinich.

What makes them so scared that they'll believe right-wing spin and force it down everyones throat? Are they scared Clark is going to win the nomination?

[Julien Sorel]

4. Dean actually supported the Kosovo war. Dean supported

Grenada, and Panama, and he has 'mixed feelings' about Reagan's adventures in South America. In fact, Dean claims to support every act of American intervention between Vietnam and Gulf War II. I wonder if he includes the Chilean coup in that -- it was intervention, even if not direct intervention. Amazing, to hear some of his Kool-aid swillers now. Being from the 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party' is like teflon squared.

[LizW]

14. "Kool-aid swillers"?

Nice. Are you TRYING to drive Democratic voters away from your candidate?:eyes:

[Julien Sorel]

48. Perhaps you would do better asking

that question elsewhere. Like in the dozens and dozens of threads alleging that one of the candidates is a war criminal, a member of PNAC, out to start WWIII, and all the rest. Most of those people support the same candidate -- but I don't see you saying a word to them about it. Why not?

[liberalnurse]

5. Please stop the Dean bashing.

I read this board daily, and 98% of the Dean supporters are only reacting to the grossly over zealous and mean spirited flame posts. The invitation to "come-back at ya" is oh too frequently see by the title post. Such comments are reflective in this thread. Thats why I elect to bring this to the attention all who read this.....

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. O.K..... Clearly Dean (and his supporters) can't take it.

we don't want to expose any glaring weaknesses in the candidates or anything.
We'll just wait for Rove to do that for us AFTER he's the nominee.
Yeah, let's see how that works. :eyes:

[liberalnurse]

19. Make no mistake, Dean supporters can take it....

so can Clark, Kucinich and Kerry supporters. My concern is why should any of the democratic voters...

Fair critique is acceptable.....slash and burn or "road rage behavior" is abusive. We all can take it.....hell, where just sitting in front of a computer....no physical threat but it does leave a ring around the bathtub, you know, that filmy scum.....residual overlay....
like depleated uranium. It decays the party.

[Pepperbelly]

22. Loyalty to your tribe ... while ...

understandable, doesn't actually give you the right to invent your own facts when the reality doesn't support the laudable loyalty you've demonstrated. When your guys post record numbers of right-wing smear jobs and ultra-left wing smear jobs and pretend that they are totally accurate, are the supporters of the victim of the smear not allowed to point out the frailties of the accusations?

As for me, I have gone a long time and absorbed much abuse of my candidate before even getting angry enough to reciprocate but the reputation-smearers have reached the saturation point with me and I intend to give what I get. If the smearers do not like that, then perhaps they should examine what they write before punching the enter key on their computers.

I still haven't sunk to the level of bashing Dean, Kucinich or Edwards. Some of my compatriots have decided to fight fire with fire but I have not yet reached that point. I would probably just leave before countering with the very types of posts that I abhor.

[Egnever]

100. Welcome to the race

Us Dean suporters have been going through the daily BS you are now experienceing for months. Fun stuff isnt it?

I havent bashed clark once nor have a majority of the dean suporters on this board and like it or not we ARE curently the majority on this board. Sure there are a few bash threads started by a few Dean suporters, but there are also bashes started by suporters of every other candidate. Labeling any single candidates supporters as bashers is just lame. Its not mean Deanies that are making your reading of DU painfull right now its people that dont like/have issues with clark. He is in the spotlight right now get used to it. The spotlight is hot. Trust me on this its been on us dean suporters for a long time now. It will be on us again soon I am sure. But I am happpy to see someone else take the heat for a few days. It has been a pleasant break.

[calimary]

110. Agreed.

[bowens43]

10. My guess is that , like me,

they really hate the idea of a 'general' trying to function in a civilian government. I don't believe that someone who is used to giving orders and having then followed immediately will be effective in the presidency.

Being in the military for 30+ years is to me, a HUGE negative and makes everything he says suspect. IMO , because of his military career, he has a LOT more to prove then the other candidates. And everything he says and everything he does needs to be closely examined.

[MoonRiver]

34. I have no desire to bash Dean. And I don't get the Clark attacks..

I'm not really sure who they're coming from. Could be a lot of rightwing trolls are infiltrating dem boards to try and stave off their worst nightmare: Wes Clark winning the Democratic nomination.

I also believe there are many Dems who are unsure about Clark and his military history. They seem to be reacting in a panicky, knee jerk manner before knowing Clark's positions, or the historical facts. I just wish they'd at least wait until the debate Thursday, and meantime read his website to gain more understanding of the man, before posting such vicious, and often outlandish, attacks.

[Pastiche423]

36. There is nothing vicious

nor outlandish about stating facts.

Btw, his historical facts are already known.

You just have to put your fingers on your keyboard and google.

P.S. I am not a RW troll. I became a registered Democratic in 1972 and have voted Democratic ever since.

[Code_Name_D]

83. I am a right wing freek now? Been called worse by better.

All the people posting the right-wing propaganda on Clark don't tend to be right-wingers. Most of the time they're Kucinich or Dean supporters. And I like Dean and I've kind of warmed up to Kucinich.

No. They are individuals who think for them selves. I do not take right wing crap from the neo-cons, and I do not take crap from the pro-Clark cluckers who seem to think one liners qualifies as substance.

Arguments such as yours, reflect vary poorly on Clark, and contiue to conferm my fears that he is another DLC golden boy. All the fancy grafics to not help ether.

What makes them so scared that they'll believe right-wing spin and force it down everyones throat? Are they scared Clark is going to win the nomination?

Ah yes. We are soooo scared, arn't we. I should have rulized that the Clark cluckers have aquired Rush Limbaugh like powers to read minds, and hurel epitats.

Dear sir, he scared ones are the Clark suporters who do not seem to be able to look at Clark's own record. Recalling Clarks own words is not right wing spin. Its recalling the record.

I only speak the truth. The Clark cluckers only think it's hell.

[ComerPerro]

3. Damn, thats a really good point

It was supposed to be a humanitarian thing. Of course, Bush would later slam Clinton for "being the worlds policemen" and "nation building".

Very good point though.

[Mairead]

18. You know what I minded a LOT more than the Kosovo killings?

Clinton's let's-be-'neutral'-and-let-the-Serbs-massacre-the-Bosnians decision.

That really got up my nostril. I'm not an isolationist. I don't mind the US being part of an international police force. What I mind is when we're the criminals. I REALLY mind that. (Which is why I support Kucinich's Dept of Peace proposal)

[Pepperbelly]

23. you should re-check your history, friend.

Clinton led the world in stopping the slaughter in Bosnia, putting the blue-helmets on the ground and seperating the opposing forces. It was not perfect but it was far better than the mess that Poppy left the world when he was chased from office.

[Mairead]

32. Srebrenica

[no name no slogan]

49. Not to mention

the intentional bombing of civilian Serbian targets, killing innocent civilians. I believe this is considered a war crime under international law.

"Humanitarian" indeed.

[jeter]

74. The best response to the Kosovo v. Iraq thing is...

We weren't fighting a "war against terrorism then"

[LTR]

6. True, but...

...just like in Orwell's '1984', the neocons adjust their spin on history to suit the times.

Just watch. They'll say Iraq was a humanitarian issue all along. They've even planted the seeds.

The nasty, dishonest propaganda machine they have is both amazing and appalling. The fact that people buy this revisionist garbage is even sicker.

[ShaneGR]

61. Only the ultra-Republican base believes him anymore

And even they are worried.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

7. Have you ever thought that the reason there was zero casualties...

is because General Jackson refused one order that could have seen open fighting between NATO and the Serbs, and another that almost gauranteed open fighting between NATO and the Russians?

I guess that shoots down the zero casualties argument.

[Democat]

12. Have you considered grasping at straws?

Looks like it. :)

[Devils Advocate NZ]

20. Hahaha! Good one!

sgr2 claimed that zero casualties was the best comeback to the "WWIII" claims, yet overlooks the fact that there were no casualties BECAUSE of the WWIII line, and you say it is ME that is grasping at straws?

You're too funny :-)

Let me spell it out for you - there were zero casualties in Kosovo thanks to Jackson, and NO THANKS to Clark, who was more than willing to get NATO troops killed in order to keep the Russians out of Pristina.

I'm on Jackson's side on this one - I just don't see what was so important about keeping the Russians out, that risking war with Russia was worth it.

What is funny to me is that the ONLY defense I have seen for this comes from Clark's book. Surely if Clark was so right about this there would be people all over the place willing to come forward and say that Clark was right? Where are they?

[Pepperbelly]

25. it was a clever line but ...

it just isn't true. Because of Clark, the halt of ethnic cleansing and bringing Milo to the bar for justice was accomplished without a single US casualty. Post-hoc fallacy much?

That pup just won't hunt, dude.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

82. No - DESPITE Clark.

Remember, it was Clark that wanted to put troops on the ground before the peace deal was made, and Clark that wanted to enter in to direct conflict with Russian and possible Serbian troops. If either of those two things had happened when Clark wanted them to happen, the chances of zero casualties would have been ZERO.

Thus, it was DESPITE Clark that there were zero casualties.

[moondust]

29. The WWIII line was gross sensationalism.

Thus the media loved it. Maybe next time Jackson will try something more levelheaded like: "Is this mission approved by NATO?" It was.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

26. There Is No Way There Would Have Been Fighting

The Russians had 200 troops in trucks and APCs, and only light weapons. NATO had much more available in theater, as well as 100% air support. NATO would have established a presence, and the Russians -- still commanded by a professional officer corps -- would have eyeballed them warily, and that's it. The Russians were not and are not suicidal.

I am willing to bet that the NATO rules of engagement were so limited that even incidental fire by the Russians would not have allowed a NATO response. There was no need, given the relative force levels and force protection models.

Claiming this incident would have sparked WW3 is hyperbole.

DTH

[Devils Advocate NZ]

84. Uh huh... I believe you... not.

The plan called for a helibourne assault on the airfield. The Russians seeing such an action would have two choices - wait and see if NATO's intention was a peaceful landing, or try to prevent the landing before enough troops could be landed inside their lines.

I am willing to bet at least one soldier from either side would have fired a shot, and then it would have been all on. In fact, the plan EXPECTED such a confrontation, otherwise there would have been no need for helicopter gunship support, would there?

By the way, are you expecting me to believe that US troops would accept casualties without fighting back? Yeah right.

By the way, everyone keeps talking about no US casualties. They seem to forget that US troops were not the ones expected to go and risk a fight with the Russians. It was British paratroops who were being ordered to assault the airfield, and that is why Jackson's refusal actually succeeded. If it was US troops, then Jackson's refusal wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference, because Clark would have just ordered them to ignore Jackson and attack anyway.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

95. Your Thinking Is Way Too Rigid on This

While I'm sure it would suit your preferences to believe that asserting a presence at the airfield would have led to WW3, the reality is that the chances of that would have been close to nil. First, your premise is defeated by the simple notion that there were similar confrontations mere days later, with NATO rolling up to the Russians, and all they did was talk, there were no bullets, no hostilities.

Second, why the hell should you assume that the helicopters and airborne troops would descend from the sky right on top of the Russian position? That would be completely retarded, and unnecessarily provocative and dangerous.

The obvious solution would have been to fly in NOE from various directions, and drop on the outskirts before moving in. With a mere 200 troops, that's barely enough to occupy the TERMINAL, much less establish any kind of defensive perimeter around the entire airfield.

Besides, once the armor got into position, the Russians would have had no recourse at all. They had APCs and trucks, they didn't have any heavy weaponry to speak of.

This is making a mountain out of a molehill.

DTH

[Devils Advocate NZ]

99. You have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Let me make this issue clear. There were TWO SEPERATE PLANS put forward by Clark to occupy the airfield.

The FIRST PLAN was put forward BEFORE the Russians actually occupied the airfield. In this FIRST PLAN, Armoured vehicles were to race across Serbian held territory to occupy the field BEFORE the Russians arrived. Jackson refused this plan because it would have involved breaching the peace deal with the Serbs.

The peace deal called for phased troop movements - the Serbs would leave an area, then once they were gone, NATO forces would occupy it. The idea was to prevent NATO forces and Serb forces meeting in potentially hostile circumstances. Breaching this deal by racing an armoured column into Serb territory could not only end the peace deal, but could have resulted in open combat between the Serbs and NATO, and it would have been NATO's fault.

Because Jackson refused this order, the Russians were able to occupy the airfield, with both troops and armoured personnel carriers. It was at this point that Clark put forward the SECOND PLAN. This plan involved British paratroops being helicoptered to the airfield, and, supported by helicopter gunships either evicting the Russian forces or occupying part of the field. This plan did NOT involve NATO armoured vehicles, only lightly armed paratroopers supported by helicopter gunships.

The SECOND PLAN was made with the EXPECTATION that open conflict with the Russians was possible, if not probable, hence the helicopter gunship support which is pointless unless you expect there to be fighting. THIS plan was the one that Jackson said "I will not start World War Three for you" to. He may have been overemphasising the danger of open conflict, but the point was that no-one could know how the Russian, and for that matter the British, people would react to open combat between the two forces - including the inevitable casualties.

You try to downplay the power of 200 armed men with APC support, but ignore the fact that the British would not have been much more heavily armed aside from the fact they had helicopter gunship support.

However, for the sake of argument, let's just say that those Russians were no threat to the NATO forces. If that is the case, why was it so important to get them off the airfield? As we now know, their occupation of the field did not change anything, so why risk even light Russian and UK casualties for something that was essentially meaningless?

The answer is that it made the NATO commanders look bad. The Russian occupation of the airfield was an embarrasement to NATO and Clark, and they did not want it to continue, and were willing to risk killing Russians to save face.

Is that a good reason? General Jackson sure didn't think so, and it turns out he was right. I don't necessarily blame Clark for this, he WAS under pressure to do something about it, but his plans were both misguided and dangerous.

Would Clark as President risk starting a war in order to save face? Maybe not. Maybe he learned something form this episode, but he SHOULD say so, and allow the American people to judge whether he really has learnt.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

103. Thank You for Your Admission

Let me make this issue clear. There were TWO SEPERATE PLANS put forward by Clark to occupy the airfield.

There were actually three: you forgot the plan to bring in British special forces first, which never got off the ground (literally) because their transport crashed.

This plan involved British paratroops being helicoptered to the airfield, and, supported by helicopter gunships either evicting the Russian forces or occupying part of the field. This plan did NOT involve NATO armoured vehicles, only lightly armed paratroopers supported by helicopter gunships.

First, it is a complete falsehood to suggest that the plan involved "evicting" the Russians. There has been zero evidence of that, anywhere.

Second, you make light of helicopter gunships, when in fact that is the entire ballgame. Paratroopers landing on the outskirts -- well away from Russian deployments but still within easy march of their goal -- would have been unassailable when supported by helicopters, especially when the Russians had ZERO airpower.

The Russians were on the spot, and they knew it.

The SECOND PLAN was made with the EXPECTATION that open conflict with the Russians was possible, if not probable, hence the helicopter gunship support which is pointless unless you expect there to be fighting.

Excuse me, are you kidding? And you're trying to present yourself as a person who is informed on military actions?

The whole reason the gunships were there was to PREVENT conflict by making the Russians' position untenable. This is an incredibly commonplace situation, where you bring overwhelming force to bear in order to achieve a deterrent or preventative effect that fulfills political goals. The Russians, as deteriorated a condition as their army has been in recent years, are still commanded by a professional officer corps. They would have known their position was untenable.

THIS plan was the one that Jackson said "I will not start World War Three for you" to. He may have been overemphasising the danger of open conflict,

Thank you for that admission.

but the point was that no-one could know how the Russian, and for that matter the British, people would react to open combat between the two forces - including the inevitable casualties.

I love it. On one hand you claim that no one could know how the Russians would react, and on the other hand you claim there would have been "inevitable" casualties.

You try to downplay the power of 200 armed men with APC support, but ignore the fact that the British would not have been much more heavily armed aside from the fact they had helicopter gunship support.

Your attempt to dismiss the helicopters as an "aside" is absurd on its face.

However, for the sake of argument, let's just say that those Russians were no threat to the NATO forces. If that is the case, why was it so important to get them off the airfield?

It wasn't important to get them OFF of the airfield, the important thing was to prevent them from reinforcing their position via transport plane by blocking the runways and asserting a presence.

DTH

[Devils Advocate NZ]

117. What admission?

There were actually three: you forgot the plan to bring in British special forces first, which never got off the ground (literally) because their transport crashed.

If you knew that, why did you try and claim that TWO SEPERATE plans were ONE PLAN? Were you mistaken, or intentionally trying to fudge the issue to make it a little more palatable?

First, it is a complete falsehood to suggest that the plan involved "evicting" the Russians. There has been zero evidence of that, anywhere.

That's not what Clinton's people said:

The officials, who declined to be identified, said that U.S.-backed plans, including one that envisaged force, if needed, to prevent the Russians from taking control of Kosovo's major airfield, were blocked by the NATO peacekeeping force commander, Lieutenant General Michael Jackson of Britain.

<SNIP>

A much stronger force, ferried to Pristina airport by helicopters and backed up by assault helicopters, could evict the Russians or at least establish a NATO presence on the airfield that would prevent it from being left under Russian control.

Backing this plan, NATO and Pentagon commanders said that the military risks, while tangible, could be minimized since the Russian contingent would be outnumbered.
http://www.iht.com/IHT/DIPLO/99/jf061999.html

So much for that claim huh?

Second, you make light of helicopter gunships, when in fact that is the entire ballgame. Paratroopers landing on the outskirts -- well away from Russian deployments but still within easy march of their goal -- would have been unassailable when supported by helicopters, especially when the Russians had ZERO airpower.

What could helicopter gunships do EXCEPT open fire on the Russians?

Are you suggesting the Russians would say "Oh look they have gunships, let's surrender"? By the way, what makes you think that a Russian force doesn't have man portable surface to air missiles? How about those all too notorious rocket propelled grenade launchers? You know, the ones that downed the helicopters in "Black Hawk Down", and the that are being used to good effect in Iraq?

But you have just confirmed that the whole idea of this second mission was to practically FORCE the Russians to fight. There was NO WAY the second force could have done anything to the Russians UNLESS the helicopter gunships destroyed the Russian APC's, which of course would have turned it into a battle that would have unpredictable consequences.

Excuse me, are you kidding? And you're trying to present yourself as a person who is informed on military actions?

The whole reason the gunships were there was to PREVENT conflict by making the Russians' position untenable. This is an incredibly commonplace situation, where you bring overwhelming force to bear in order to achieve a deterrent or preventative effect that fulfills political goals. The Russians, as deteriorated a condition as their army has been in recent years, are still commanded by a professional officer corps. They would have known their position was untenable.

What can a helicopter gunship do to influence actions on the ground EXCEPT open fire? Obviously you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Apaches can circle ALL DAY, but unless they actually SHOOT something, they are POINTLESS. Their mere presence is a THREAT OF FORCE, and it is unlikely that Russian troops would just cave in to such threats.

In fact, it is likely that a Russian armoured force would have surface to air missiles, and if needed would have attempted to shoot them down. This is NOT such an unlikely prospect, as the US found in Iraq, when at least two, and possibly more, gunships were shot down.

The point is, the Russians had the field, and the only way to get them off it would have been to open fire. Doing so may have resulted in a NATO victory, but the Russians would have every reason to believe that the NATO forces wouldn't risk such a battle. In fact they would have been right, wouldn't they? After all, it didn't happen did it?

Thank you for that admission.

What admission? Do you know what the word "MAY" means? It is usually used to denote uncertainty, and thus while it was possible that he WAS overemphasising the danger, it is ALSO possible that he WASN'T.

I love it. On one hand you claim that no one could know how the Russians would react, and on the other hand you claim there would have been "inevitable" casualties.

Your reading comprehension seems to be faltering. I said that no one could know how the Russians would react TO the inevitable casualties caused by open combat. People get hurt in combat, hence the term "inevitable casualties". I already said combat was not inevitable, but was possible or probable. The fact remains that WITHOUT combat, the mission would not have succeeded because the only way to get the Russians to leave was by force. They would not have left unless they actually came under fire.

Your attempt to dismiss the helicopters as an "aside" is absurd on its face.

Once again your reading comprehension is faulty. I didn't treat it as an "aside" what I said was "aside from" the helicopter gunships, the forces would have been fairly equally ballanced. Thus, the helicopter gunships would have been what made the difference, and the ONLY way they could make a difference would be to open fire.

As i said above, they could circle all day and have no affect on the action on the ground. It would be ONLY by firing on the APC's, for example, that they could change the outcome.

If you are trying to suggest that Russians would just go running and screaming off into the sunset at the mere sight of gunships, I suggest you think again. That sort of thing is only the propaganda that the US likes to fool itself with.

It wasn't important to get them OFF of the airfield, the important thing was to prevent them from reinforcing their position via transport plane by blocking the runways and asserting a presence.

Blocking the runways with what? UK paratroopers? I already told you that there were NO ARMOURED VEHICLES in the second plan. Thus the ONLY WAY to block the runway would be to open fire on incoming Russian aircraft. If you think THAT would have resulted in anything good you are not just mistaken, you are crazy.

Let me say it again. The FIRST PLAN had an armoured column seizing the field BEFORE the Russians arrived. This WAS NOT what Jacson said could start WWIII, he refused THIS PLAN because it would have breached the peace deal.

The SECOND PLAN called for a helibourne assualt - meaning NO ARMOURED VEHICLES - once the Russians were on the field. This is the plan that Jackson considered too dangerous to contemplate.

Now, can I ask you why you HAVEN'T addressed the REAL issue? That is, why it was deemed so important to get the Russians off the airfield? Why risk ANY sort of combat for something that MADE NO DIFFERENCE? Was Clark just itching for a fight? History shows that no such confrontation was necessary, so why risk it?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

119. You Are Operating Under Some Very Flawed Assumptions

If you knew that, why did you try and claim that TWO SEPERATE plans were ONE PLAN? Were you mistaken, or intentionally trying to fudge the issue to make it a little more palatable?

No, I'm actually taking you at your word about the armored force, as my impression was that it had been merged with the airborne plan. Since I'm not really taking issue with that part of it, I didn't really feel the need to quibble.

The officials, who declined to be identified, said that U.S.-backed plans, including one that envisaged force, if needed, to prevent the Russians from taking control of Kosovo's major airfield, were blocked by the NATO peacekeeping force commander, Lieutenant General Michael Jackson of Britain.

I don't see anything about eviction here, and I'm skeptical of unnamed sources.

A much stronger force, ferried to Pristina airport by helicopters and backed up by assault helicopters, could evict the Russians or at least establish a NATO presence on the airfield that would prevent it from being left under Russian control.

COULD evict. Not would evict. The actual position was the establishment of a presence. Not even Jackson claims he was ordered to attack, and you'd think that of all people, he would know.

Backing this plan, NATO and Pentagon commanders said that the military risks, while tangible, could be minimized since the Russian contingent would be outnumbered.

http://www.iht.com/IHT/DIPLO/99/jf061999.html

So much for that claim huh?

Not really. If you actually read the article, particularly the bolded section above, you'll note that it supports my position, not yours. I also find it interesting how you're trying to pin all of this on Clark, when there were in fact many people, including his civilian superiors, who supported these plans.

What could helicopter gunships do EXCEPT open fire on the Russians?

Duh. They would create a credible deterrent. Unless the Russians were suicidal, they would not have started a fight in a situation like that. There is no way.

Are you suggesting the Russians would say "Oh look they have gunships, let's surrender"?

Not surrender, but not start a fight, either. It would have been a standoff, with both sides glaring at each other, EXACTLY like they did a few days later when the NATO column finally moved up to the Russians at the airport.

Same thing there. There was a confrontation, but no fighting. Just two sides sane enough to stare at each other balefully, rather than opening fire.

Your entire argument is based on the notion that the Russians would initiate an attack against a vastly superior foe. I think that notion is ridiculous.

By the way, what makes you think that a Russian force doesn't have man portable surface to air missiles? How about those all too notorious rocket propelled grenade launchers? You know, the ones that downed the helicopters in "Black Hawk Down", and the that are being used to good effect in Iraq?

Oh, I'm quite certain they probably had some RPGs. Still doesn't mean they're going to start a fight when they're outnumbered with control of the skies clearly belonging to NATO.

But you have just confirmed that the whole idea of this second mission was to practically FORCE the Russians to fight.

I haven't confirmed that at all.

There was NO WAY the second force could have done anything to the Russians UNLESS the helicopter gunships destroyed the Russian APC's, which of course would have turned it into a battle that would have unpredictable consequences.

Dude, were you even listening? Big airport. Lots of approaches. 200 Russians. The helicopters just had to provide cover, and not even covering fire, just a simple establishment of presence.

What can a helicopter gunship do to influence actions on the ground EXCEPT open fire?

What can nuclear missiles do to influence behavior except launch? Same concept. Their existence acts as a deterrent, and prevents the other side from launching an attack.

Grunt infantrymen in trucks and APCs are not going to start a fight against a numerically superior enemy with strong, close air support. It just isn't going to happen.

Obviously you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Apaches can circle ALL DAY, but unless they actually SHOOT something, they are POINTLESS.

See above. Their presence certainly has a point.

Their mere presence is a THREAT OF FORCE, and it is unlikely that Russian troops would just cave in to such threats.

On what POSSIBLE basis do you make that claim, other than your wild-assed-guess?

We didn't need the Russians to "cave," all we needed was for them not to start a fight when they knew they were outnumbered and outarmed, an entirely rational decision. You are instead relying on the proposition that the Russians would NOT act rationally. While that is indeed a possibility, I view it as a remote one.

In fact, it is likely that a Russian armoured force would have surface to air missiles, and if needed would have attempted to shoot them down.

This was not a "Russian armored force." This was an incredibly lightly-armed and lightly-armored force of 200 troops in TRUCKS and APCs. APCs aren't really "armor" in the traditional sense.

The point is, the Russians had the field, and the only way to get them off it would have been to open fire.

Untrue. That airport was very large. 200 men isn't even close to enough to cover it all. The NATO forces could have moved in, even radioing ahead telling them their intentions were not hostile, or whatever passes for diplomacy among forces in the field like that. There is nothing the Russians could have done to stop them, save starting a fight against a vastly more powerful foe.

Your reading comprehension seems to be faltering. I said that no one could know how the Russians would react TO the inevitable casualties caused by open combat.

You are assuming there would be open combat, which, as I point out above, is a very weak assumption.

Blocking the runways with what? UK paratroopers?

With the helicopters. That aspect of the plan is common knowledge.

Now, can I ask you why you HAVEN'T addressed the REAL issue? That is, why it was deemed so important to get the Russians off the airfield? Why risk ANY sort of combat for something that MADE NO DIFFERENCE? Was Clark just itching for a fight? History shows that no such confrontation was necessary, so why risk it?

Clark got his orders from higher up. As for why they were worried, they were concerned about the Russians transporting in thousands of more troops and carving out their own sector. This would have resulted in all kinds of chaos and problems.

Regardless, it was made a moot point by good parallel planning, namely convincing Hungary to deny airspace to the Russians. That ended up doing the trick.

DTH

[Devils Advocate NZ]

121. An amazing bit of spin from you.

No, I'm actually taking you at your word about the armored force, as my impression was that it had been merged with the airborne plan. Since I'm not really taking issue with that part of it, I didn't really feel the need to quibble.

Nope, your "impression" is wrong. You can't transport armoured vehicles by helicopter - in fact, the LIGHTEST armoured vehicles need four engined tranport planes to lift them.

This just shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Trying to dodge this fact does nothing to support your argument. Either you knew what the plans were, or you didn't.

I don't see anything about eviction here, and I'm skeptical of unnamed sources.

Of course you don't, becuase you dropped this sentence into the middle of the section I quoted and IGNORED the bolded part where it says "could evict the Russians". Why you would do this EXCEPT to try and spin the article is beyond me.

COULD evict. Not would evict. The actual position was the establishment of a presence. Not even Jackson claims he was ordered to attack, and you'd think that of all people, he would know.

Yes, and then it said "or at least establish a NATO presence" in other words the range of expected outcomes was to at most "evict" or at least "establish a NATO presence".

I also never said that Jackson was ordered to "attack". I said that Jackson was ordered to carry out an operation where at best nothing would change, and at worst open combat with Russian troops would occur. Why else would Jackson refuse the order? Do you think he just did it for the fun of it? I believe Jackson would know better than you.

Not really. If you actually read the article, particularly the bolded section above, you'll note that it supports my position, not yours. I also find it interesting how you're trying to pin all of this on Clark, when there were in fact many people, including his civilian superiors, who supported these plans.

No it doesn't. Your stated position is that the Russians would NOT risk combat with the NATO forces. Nowhere in the article is this stated. In fact, the sentence out of the quote that you bolded shows that this was NOT on the minds of the planners.

They clearly state that the risk of combat was tangible, but could be MINIMISED. That does not mean much. In fact it means no more than "if the Russians fight we will win". The point is Jackson believed, and so do I, that it was almost certain that the Russians WOULD fight, and that winning the battle means very little if it triggers a major confrontation with Russia.

How would the US react if the roles were reversed, and Russian forces attacked an outnumbered contingent of US Peacekeepers? You and I both know the answer to that.

Duh. They would create a credible deterrent. Unless the Russians were suicidal, they would not have started a fight in a situation like that. There is no way.

Yeah right. Russians are cowards, and everyone knows that Rambo will kill them all if they don't just throw up their hands and surrender. Hell even they know they can't beat Rambo!

Give me a break.

Your ridiculous Hollywood expectations do not equate to reality. We were talking about real combat troops, not Hollywood caricatures. If NATO troops had tried to "evict" them, or even establish a threatening "presence", the Russians would have had NO CHOICE but to confront them. Such a confrontation could and possibly would have turned into bloodshed.

Not surrender, but not start a fight, either. It would have been a standoff, with both sides glaring at each other, EXACTLY like they did a few days later when the NATO column finally moved up to the Russians at the airport.

Same thing there. There was a confrontation, but no fighting. Just two sides sane enough to stare at each other balefully, rather than opening fire.

You do know the difference to a helicopter assualt with gunship support and walking up to the front gate don't you?

Dropping troops on the airfield would have been a threatening move, even more so with helicopter gunships added to the mix. Threatened people with guns don't often wait to see what happens.

There is a vast difference with having the NATO column move to the airport and suddenly dropping paratroops in their midst. Look, don't take my word for it. Take General Jackson's. He believed the plan would result in fighting, who are you to second guess the man on the ground?

On what POSSIBLE basis do you make that claim, other than your wild-assed-guess?

We didn't need the Russians to "cave," all we needed was for them not to start a fight when they knew they were outnumbered and outarmed, an entirely rational decision. You are instead relying on the proposition that the Russians would NOT act rationally. While that is indeed a possibility, I view it as a remote one.

You contradict yourself! First you seem to be saying that my assertion that the sudden appearance of helicopter gunships is a threat of force is incorrect, then you go on to say the threat of force is what was expected to stop them fighting? Do you even think about what you are typing?

By the way, "rational" when you are threatened is to defend. "Not rational" when threatened is to just sit there and do nothing, especially when you are part of a trained combat force.

Tell me, do US troops act rationally when they fire on "suspect" vehicles at Iraq checkpoints? Or are US troops crazy?

Your entire argument is based on the notion that the Russians would initiate an attack against a vastly superior foe. I think that notion is ridiculous.

Tell that to the Vietnamese, the Afghans and the Iraqis. The Russians were told to occupy the airport. They did. To them, it was their turf. You suddenly turn up with troops and gunships on their turf and they are most likely going to do something about it. Even Clark thought so, which is why he wanted to send gunships in the first place. General Jackson thought so too, which is why he refused the order. Of course, YOU know better than the Generals who were there.

Dude, were you even listening? Big airport. Lots of approaches. 200 Russians. The helicopters just had to provide cover, and not even covering fire, just a simple establishment of presence.

And exactly what "presence" is that? Do you think they were going to just sit at the end of the runway? What about the Russians? Don't you think they would have put troops in all the same strategic locations that the paratroops would want to take?

Hell, in the NZ Army, we would be expected to take and hold most of the airport, which is NOT hard with 200 men. That would be 100 two man emplacements scattered around the field with overlapping fields of fire, supported by the heavy weapons on the APC's. You do know that a rifle can shoot 300 metres or more don't you? And that machine guns can be accurate out to a mile?

Do you honestly think they were all just sitting in the terminal?

This was not a "Russian armored force." This was an incredibly lightly-armed and lightly-armored force of 200 troops in TRUCKS and APCs. APCs aren't really "armor" in the traditional sense.

Firstly, they were no more lightly armed than the paratroops. Second, what do you think the "A" in APC stands for? It is of course "Armoured". Troops carried in APC's are considered "Armoured".

Untrue. That airport was very large. 200 men isn't even close to enough to cover it all. The NATO forces could have moved in, even radioing ahead telling them their intentions were not hostile, or whatever passes for diplomacy among forces in the field like that. There is nothing the Russians could have done to stop them, save starting a fight against a vastly more powerful foe.

You'd be surprised. 200 men with machine guns and rifles can cover a pretty large area. As for radioing ahead, that would be plain nuts. To do so would invite being shot down before they could even land. It would have to be a surprise otherwise they would be sitting ducks.

By the way, from my reading, it wouldn't have been a "vastly more powerful" foe. Helicopter gunships are not as powerful as you'd think. Dug in positions are actually a lot harder to destroy than most people know, and it usually takes infantry, NOT attack fighters or helicopters, to overcome dug in positions.

Remember the footage of the abandoned Iraqi emplacements around Baghdad? There were dozens upon dozens of fully working APC's and tanks found abandoned, even after one of the most devestating air campaigns ever seen. If those Iraqis had decided to put up a fight, things may have been much different.

So, lets just imagine that the Russians only hold one end of the airfield, and the paratroops are dropped on the other. What would have happened if the Russians loaded up in the APC's and drove towards the paratroops?

The only thing that could have been done to stop them would be to have the helicopter gunships fire on and destroy them. If they did not, APC mounted troops could have quickly dealt with the paratroops with the armament of the APC's and the dismounted infantry.

So, the point is, there is NOWHERE on the field that you can put the paratroops without risking combat. Why would the Russians just let them land without confronting them? There would be no sense in it. They had their mission too, and they would have tried to carry it out.

With the helicopters. That aspect of the plan is common knowledge.

What? Were they going to land the helicopters on the runway? What would stop the Russian APC's just shooting them up or pushing them out of the way? By the way, who ever said the Russian aircraft had to LAND? The Russians have paratroops too you know. In fact they have many more than the UK does. They also have paradrop capable light tanks. Of course a few hundred lightly armed paratroops with helicopter gunship support would be so scary to them, right?

As I said, aside fron shooting down the Russian aircraft, there would be no way to stop the Russians from reinforcing the troops on the ground, and they certainly couldn't do it with helicopter gunships.

The point is, the best way to deal with the Russian occupation of the airport was to negotiate with Russia. Playing games with paratroops was unecessarily dangerous and pointless as it could NOT have had the desired effect.

Clark got his orders from higher up. As for why they were worried, they were concerned about the Russians transporting in thousands of more troops and carving out their own sector. This would have resulted in all kinds of chaos and problems.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The fact is, the NATO planners, including Clark claimed the political risks of combat with the Russians were low because there were indications that the Russian troops had gone rogue. Apparently they sold the idea of an assault on the airfield by saying they had radio intercepts of the Russian command ordering the Russian troops to turn back and NOT occupy the airfield. This was why they claimed it wouldn't be that bad of a political risk to confront the Russians at the airport.

Read the article I quoted. It's in there.

So if that was true, why the worry about the Russians "carving out their own sector"? If it was NOT true, then the NATO commanders were lying when they said the political risks were minimal because it was an unauthorised operation.

Regardless, it was made a moot point by good parallel planning, namely convincing Hungary to deny airspace to the Russians. That ended up doing the trick.

Which only goes to show that a dangerous assult on the airport was TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. Why risk it when they were already planning to prevent Russian flights to the region? The answer, once again can only be because it was embarrasing to Clark and the other NATO planners.

Risking combat with the Russians at the airfield was stupid and unnecesary, and Jackson said so and refused. He was the man on the ground, with FAR MORE information than you have. What makes YOU qualified to claim otherwise?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

123. YOU Are Accusing ME of Spin? Wow.

Fundamental points still not addressed by you:

1) No credible source exists, not even Jackson himself, who claims that an attack on the airfield by NATO was in the offing. Even the "unnamed sources" you cite say only that the Russians "could" have been evicted. That is true, and technically a big fight "could" have erupted as well. Last I checked, "could" did not equal "would" or even "should."

2) You still don't seem to understand or acknowledge the importance that, oh, a whole wing of helicopters would play in helping the Russians decide whether or not they should attack. You seem to be under some delusion that the Russians are either suicidal or stupid, to risk fighting in such a situation, when they ALSO knew that any conflict they initiated would become an enormous diplomatic blowup. All the helicopters had to do was play watchful sentry until the paratroopers moved into position and set up camp. Then the presence is established, and the two sides stare balefully at each other, just like they did a couple of days later.

3) As I mentioned before, parallel planning is important. There was no guarantee that Hungary would agree to deny airspace to the Russians. There was no guarantee that Russia would abide by that denial. General Clark is a big believer in parallel planning, and that makes sense: it's just unwise to put all of your eggs in one basket.

4) The 200 Russian troops were undoubtedly deployed in as good a defensive position as they could. But they did not have enough troops to physically assert themselves over the entire airfield. This goes back to the multiple approaches thing, and the ability of NATO to assert a presence.

Now, as to your irrelevant, smoke-screen distractions:

1) Of course I know that assault helicopters do not CARRY armored units. When I said my impression was that the plans had merged, I'm talking about a simultaneous approach, the armor by land and the helicopters and airborne by air. I'm still not conceding that the plans hadn't merged, but since it's not really an issue in controversy here, I let it go before, and I would have let it gone again, but for your snide comment about my knowledge of helicopters transporting armor.

2) You are quite mistaken if you believe the mere "A" in "APC" qualifies a vehicle as traditional armor. APCs are considered mech infantry units, not armor; they are light-skinned and can't deflect much more than small arms fire. Helicopters would CHEW THEM UP. In fact, modern helicopters were MADE to destroy enemy APCs and, depending on the helicopter, even tanks (such as the AH-64 Apache, which has the powerful Hellfire anti-tank missiles).

3) Your stated position is that the Russians would NOT risk combat with the NATO forces. Nowhere in the article is this stated.

That's because I and most people with a clue about military tactics don't need an article to figure out what the Russians' position was here: it was pretty piss poor. The article which you are so desperately clinging to (again, citing its "unnamed sources") didn't have any interviews of the Russians, it didn't delve into a tactical analysis of who held the upper hand. Yet it's still clear to any educated observer of the situation.

4) How would the US react if the roles were reversed, and Russian forces attacked an outnumbered contingent of US Peacekeepers?

Once again, you are assuming an attack was in the offing, and that is a completely unsupported assumption. Not even Jackson claims that. It's because there was no plan to attack by NATO.

5) Dropping troops on the airfield would have been a threatening move, even more so with helicopter gunships added to the mix.

Since you don't appear to have read what I wrote, I'll repeat myself: parachuting on top of the Russians would have been retarded, tactically stupid, and unnecessarily confrontational. You drop on the outskirts, out of range, and quick march in with helicopter support.

If it makes you feel better, however, you can continue insisting on your point-of-view, despite your lack of evidence supporting it, and the lack of even a modicum of tactical sense associated with your plan.

6) You contradict yourself! First you seem to be saying that my assertion that the sudden appearance of helicopter gunships is a threat of force is incorrect, then you go on to say the threat of force is what was expected to stop them fighting? Do you even think about what you are typing?

Sigh. I haven't contradicted myself at all. The helicopters are a menacing, overwhelming presence in that situation. It is precisely that strength which would have dissuaded the Russians from initiating an attack.

7) You'd be surprised. 200 men with machine guns and rifles can cover a pretty large area. As for radioing ahead, that would be plain nuts. To do so would invite being shot down before they could even land. It would have to be a surprise otherwise they would be sitting ducks.

There was no real element of surprise possible here; once the helicopters were sighted and/or heard, the Russians would have been ready. Accordingly, there is no downside to radioing ahead, once they were in the area already. They would already know they were coming. And again, the Russians would not have started a fight that: a) would have resulted in a huge international incident; and b) they would have lost very badly.

8) What? Were they going to land the helicopters on the runway? What would stop the Russian APC's just shooting them up or pushing them out of the way?

Because the helicopters would have provided cover until the paratroops had a chance to deploy and set up base. Then they could have landed, with rotating air patrols maintaining cover.

9) By the way, who ever said the Russian aircraft had to LAND? The Russians have paratroops too you know. In fact they have many more than the UK does. They also have paradrop capable light tanks. Of course a few hundred lightly armed paratroops with helicopter gunship support would be so scary to them, right?

You like to throw up a whole bunch of hypotheticals in the hope that one of them sticks, don't you? There is no indication from anywhere that the Russians considered -- or even had ready to deploy -- large numbers of paratroops.

DTH

[Devils Advocate NZ]

124. There you go again!

1) No credible source exists, not even Jackson himself, who claims that an attack on the airfield by NATO was in the offing. Even the "unnamed sources" you cite say only that the Russians "could" have been evicted. That is true, and technically a big fight "could" have erupted as well. Last I checked, "could" did not equal "would" or even "should."

Then why did Jackson say he would NOT start WWIII for Clark? he OBVIOULSY thought there was agreat chance of combat with the Russians, otherwise there would be no point to saying this. The fact is, the plan called for a helibourne assault on the airfield backed by helicopter gunships.

No matter how the drop occured whether it be at some distance (which would NOT prevent the Russians from moving in their direction to block them) or whether it was right on the runway, such an assault is a threatening maneuver. The Russians wouldn't know whether the plan was just to set up a presence or if it was in fact an actual attack on them. They would have to react to the worst possible threat - an attack - otherwise they would risk being wiped out. If you think ANY combat formation listens to enemy radio broadcasts you are sorely mistaken. How could they know it wasn't a trick?

2) You still don't seem to understand or acknowledge the importance that, oh, a whole wing of helicopters would play in helping the Russians decide whether or not they should attack. You seem to be under some delusion that the Russians are either suicidal or stupid, to risk fighting in such a situation, when they ALSO knew that any conflict they initiated would become an enormous diplomatic blowup. All the helicopters had to do was play watchful sentry until the paratroopers moved into position and set up camp. Then the presence is established, and the two sides stare balefully at each other, just like they did a couple of days later.

And you seem unable to comprehend that Russians may not be cowards. They were given an order, and they would have carried it out, even if it meant fighting for it. Just because YOU think helicopters are so scary does not mean that EVERYONE thinks they are. As you say later in your post, helicopter gunships are most dangerous to vehicles. Dismounted infantry is another story altogether, and dug in dismounted infantry is yet another.

If a NATO force had suddenly appeared, they would have to assume hostile intent (not least because of those very helicopters) and would have to make a quick decision - fight or give up. Trained combat soldiers are trained to make the FORMER choice. It is nothing but arrogance to assume that only Americans make futile last stands like the one described in Black Hawk Down. If threatened, the Russians would have fought, and the plan called for threatening them quite strongly. Hell, they may have even won. Who knows?

3) As I mentioned before, parallel planning is important. There was no guarantee that Hungary would agree to deny airspace to the Russians. There was no guarantee that Russia would abide by that denial. General Clark is a big believer in parallel planning, and that makes sense: it's just unwise to put all of your eggs in one basket.

So NATO didn't control the skies over Kosovo? Are you seriously trying to tell me that Russian transports could have flown into that airspace unopposed? If the Russians had tried it they could have easily been shot down. In fact one of the reasons they asked Hungary to deny the airspace was to avoid a confrontation of this manner. Why avoid confrontation in the air but not on the ground? As I said it was sensless, and Jackson pointed this out.

4) The 200 Russian troops were undoubtedly deployed in as good a defensive position as they could. But they did not have enough troops to physically assert themselves over the entire airfield. This goes back to the multiple approaches thing, and the ability of NATO to assert a presence.

I don't know about that. They had APC's which could easily trasport them to any part of the field in minutes. If they had an idea that a assualt was coming, don't you think they'd redeploy to better face the threat? I do. What could NATO have done to stop it? As I said, the only choice would be to open fire on them. Hell the Russians could just load up and begin threatening the paratroops back off the field, WITHOUT opening fire. What would happen then? Would the paratroops open fire to avoid being pushed off the field?

1) Of course I know that assault helicopters do not CARRY armored units. When I said my impression was that the plans had merged, I'm talking about a simultaneous approach, the armor by land and the helicopters and airborne by air. I'm still not conceding that the plans hadn't merged, but since it's not really an issue in controversy here, I let it go before, and I would have let it gone again, but for your snide comment about my knowledge of helicopters transporting armor.

And I already pointed out that the armour could NOT move across country without breaching the peace deal, which was already refused by Jackson. Why would he suddenly allow it after he had refused it before? No, the second plan was a purely airbourne assault. If the armour was going to move across country there was no need for the airbourne portion of the plan was there?

2) You are quite mistaken if you believe the mere "A" in "APC" qualifies a vehicle as traditional armor. APCs are considered mech infantry units, not armor; they are light-skinned and can't deflect much more than small arms fire. Helicopters would CHEW THEM UP. In fact, modern helicopters were MADE to destroy enemy APCs and, depending on the helicopter, even tanks (such as the AH-64 Apache, which has the powerful Hellfire anti-tank missiles).

I never said that APC's were "traditional armour". I said they were armoured troops. Mechanised troops are troops in trucks, armoured troops are troops in APC's. I think you will find that all infantry are now considered "mechanised", while troops that have APC's belong to armoured formations. However, this is a silly word game. Whether they be mechanised or armoured does not matter. What matters is that compared to paratroops on the ground, an APC is armour.

Now, as for the helicopters, you have a good point, but once again, you must remember that the only way to "chew them up" is to fire on them, which as I said is what Jackson was trying to avoid. You can't claim that the threat of shooting them is enough to affect them - it isn't. They had a job to do, and they would have done it unless prevented. The only way to prevent them would be to destroy them. Stop thinking that Russians are cowards - they are not. They would have done their jobs just like the UK paratroopers, and they would have done it even if they were threatened.

That's because I and most people with a clue about military tactics don't need an article to figure out what the Russians' position was here: it was pretty piss poor. The article which you are so desperately clinging to (again, citing its "unnamed sources") didn't have any interviews of the Russians, it didn't delve into a tactical analysis of who held the upper hand. Yet it's still clear to any educated observer of the situation.

Upper hand? Once again, you assume the Russians are cowards and would just throw down their weapons at the sight of a superior force. This is NOT a reasonable assumption. You also assume that they did not have adequate air defence - ie SAMs - and that is also not very reasonable. The Russian may have lost the battle - note I said MAY - but they would have given the paratroops a very bloddy nose, and they also would know that it was NOT in the best interests of NATO to fight them.

You see, you seem to forget the Serbs in all this. The Russians may have been outnumbered, but they were surrounded in the countryside by Serb forces, and all that needed to happen is for Russia to offer support to the Serbs in return for Serb intervention at the airfield, and things could have been very different. For all we know, that support was already arranged.

Once again, you are assuming an attack was in the offing, and that is a completely unsupported assumption. Not even Jackson claims that. It's because there was no plan to attack by NATO.

Not at all. Jackson saw the potential and refused the mission. It seems HE thought that this could very well turn into an attack, so why do you deny it? He was there, you weren't.

Since you don't appear to have read what I wrote, I'll repeat myself: parachuting on top of the Russians would have been retarded, tactically stupid, and unnecessarily confrontational. You drop on the outskirts, out of range, and quick march in with helicopter support.

If it makes you feel better, however, you can continue insisting on your point-of-view, despite your lack of evidence supporting it, and the lack of even a modicum of tactical sense associated with your plan.

So they were going to drop the paratroops into Serb held territory, tn breach of the peace deal? And the Russians were just going to sit there and let them march on to the airfield? Are you nuts?

You talk a good game, but you have NO IDEA what the reality on the ground was, do you? The ONLY way the mission would be successful is to put the troops ONTO the airfield so that the Russians would have to push them off. If they weren't on the airfield, the Russians could just redeploy in their APC's and prevent them from even getting on the field.

Sigh. I haven't contradicted myself at all. The helicopters are a menacing, overwhelming presence in that situation. It is precisely that strength which would have dissuaded the Russians from initiating an attack.

Yes, you did. You claimed that the helicopter gunships were NOT a threat of force, then claimed that the threat of force provided by the gunships would force the Russians to back down. In fact you're doing it again.

There was no real element of surprise possible here; once the helicopters were sighted and/or heard, the Russians would have been ready. Accordingly, there is no downside to radioing ahead, once they were in the area already. They would already know they were coming. And again, the Russians would not have started a fight that: a) would have resulted in a huge international incident; and b) they would have lost very badly.

Oh, ok. You have just invalidated the entire point of helibourne assaults (surprise), but I believe you. Perhaps you could tell Clark and the rest of the US (and other nation's) military so that they stop using crazy tactics that will get men killed for nothing.

The WHOLE point of a helibourne assault is surprise. The idea is that in the seconds between detection of incoming helicopters and the actual placement on the ground of the troops, very little preperation can be made by defenders. This means that you can plan the assualt to take account of current defensive employments and be reasonably assured that this will not have changed by the time you put the troops on the ground.

And, THERE IS a downside to radioing ahead. If you do so, you are basically telling the opposition what you are going to do and when. Not a very smart move if you wish to keep your troops alive.

Because the helicopters would have provided cover until the paratroops had a chance to deploy and set up base. Then they could have landed, with rotating air patrols maintaining cover.

And what would they do if the Russian mounted up in their APC's and drove into the middle of the paratroopers? Would they just sit there and let them do it? Or would they open fire because of the threat?

And you truly expect me to believe they were going to land helicopter on an open airfield with Russian troops there to shoot the shit out of them if they wanted to? As I said, are you nuts?

You like to throw up a whole bunch of hypotheticals in the hope that one of them sticks, don't you? There is no indication from anywhere that the Russians considered -- or even had ready to deploy -- large numbers of paratroops.

You're the one that claimed the Russians were going to use aircraft to reinforce their positions at the airport. Are you saying the Russians wouldn't use paratroops if the runway was blocked? You do know that the Russians trained for decades on how to take airfields by airbourne assault don't you?

But lets say you're right, and that there was no Russian paratroopers ready to fly in. In fact the same can be said for ANY Russian troops. There is no indication that ANY troops were ready to fly in in any form, so why the need to assault the field.

I see you have once again failed to address the real issue. What is the matter, have you no answer for it?

Let me ask you again. If the Russians at the airport were not a threat, and there was no indication of reinforcements coming, and even if they did they could not have entered Kosovo airspace without being shot down, even if they were able to cross Hungary without being shot down, then what was so important about getting those Russian troops off the airfield? Why not just surround them and negotiate with the Russians (which is what eventually happened)?

Can you answer that question? Why assault the airfield at all?

You can't answer it because you and I both know, and history shows, that such an assault was pointless and dangerous, and even if no combat had occured there was no reason to do it. So why risk even a remote chance of combat with the Russians? That is why Jackson said no.

Trying to ignore that simple fact does NOT help you or Clark. It would be far better, and much easier to convince doubters, if Clark simply said "I was wrong". Why is it so hard to admit mistakes?

Do you Americans expect presidents to be infallible? Personally I would prefer a man who makes mistakes but admits them and learns from them, rather than a man who denies he even makes mistakes. Bush is such a man, and we can see where that got us.

[FullCountNotRecount]

105. Clark respected Nato. Would Rumsfeld, Bush, and Franks?

I don't think so. They would another way to get troops to the airport. Thank goodness Clark backed down. He didn't have to.

[Sagan]

9. I was just thinking about this...

A great campaign soundbite for any Democrat, but especially Clark, would be:

We succeeded in Kosovo in doing what President Bush is failing to do in Iraq. And we did it with international cooperation and ZERO U.S. casualties. This Administration is obviously in over their heads.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. The distinction is obvious

and it IS a good point for us.

Yes, any war is evil. Even a war in a 'just' cause like defeating the Nazis. I was ambivalent about Kosovo - I suppose I have a hard time supporting any war no matter what the cause. But I certainly did not feel the same level of outrage and betrayal by my government that I do now.

[KG]

11. a humanitarian mission?

what kind of humanitarian mission targets TVs stations and power plants?

[jonnyblitz]

13. and the attitude that only US casualities are worth mentioning. n/t

[Pastiche423]

21. ...and hospitals

But hey, none of those innocents that died were USians! Their lives din't matter! They had to be protected from genocide!

How fucking nationalistic to be celebrating that there were "zero US casualties.

This is a disgusting post.

[KG]

43. killing people to protect them from genocide

still trying to wrap my feeble mind aound that one, babe. :eyes:

and didn't you get the memo, love? the only lives that matter on the face of this planet are USians. most esp. the soldiers!

smooches! :*

[no name no slogan]

96. Sounds like the DoD during VietNam

Remember, "we're destroying this village in order to SAVE it (from the Viet Cong)!".

Of course, maybe only Colin Powell remembers that line nowdays, since he helped cover up My Lai and whatnot.

[ShaneGR]

76. Are you suggesting that hospitals were bombed?

Because that's a lie. That is disgusting.

[IndianaGreen]

80. Clark was "cavalier" about NATO's civilian death toll

Once again, I use a respected human rights organization as the source, rather than partisan talking points:

With respect to NATO violations of international humanitarian law, Human Rights Watch was concerned about a number of cases in which NATO forces:

· conducted air attacks using cluster bombs near populated areas;
· attacked targets of questionable military legitimacy, including Serb Radio and Television, heating plants, and bridges;
· did not take adequate precautions in warning civilians of attacks;
· took insufficient precautions identifying the presence of civilians when attacking convoys and mobile targets; and
· caused excessive civilian casualties by not taking sufficient measures to verify that military targets did not have concentrations of civilians (such as at Korisa).

One disturbing aspect of the matter of civilian deaths is how starkly the number of incidents and deaths contrasts with official U.S. and Yugoslav statements. U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre, and Gen. Wesley Clark, have testified before Congress and stated publicly that there were only twenty to thirty incidents of "collateral damage" in the entire war. The number of incidents Human Rights Watch has been able to authenticate is three to four times this number. The seemingly cavalier U.S. statements regarding the civilian toll suggest a resistance to acknowledging the actual civilian effects and an indifference to evaluating their causes.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200.htm#P37_987

[clar]

15. I supported the Kosovo mission

and I still do. Having said that, American lives are not, to me, more sacrosant than the lives of others. The truth is, innocent people did die in the bombing. Inevitable? Probably, but civilian deaths are always tragic. Let's not forget that.

[dkf]

16. Clark wanted ground war in Kosovo but was denied

http://www.afa.org/magazine/sept2001/0901clark_print.html

It was exactly this obsession with trying to put boots on the ground in the form of an invasion in Kosovo that likely cost Clark his job as SACEUR. Even in its rockiest periods, the US military Chiefs and White House officials offered steady support for the NATO air campaign. Clark, however, lobbied hard for a NATO decision to gear up for land war.

As it turned out, Clark was completely at odds with Washington and European leaders about the preferred direction of the war. His penalty was high. Just one month after the end of Allied Force, White House officials leaked the embarrassing news that Clark would retire earlier than planned and vacate the SACEUR post for another officer, USAF Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, who was then the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Clark's candid memoir gives a view of Allied Force very different from all others to date. The narrative is dominated not by details of air combat operations, as one might expect, but rather by recapitulations of lost political battles and fervent planning for a ground operation that never took place and was never really in the cards. His tale provides a disturbing inside look at a Supreme Allied Commander who was distrustful of airpower and out of step with military colleagues and political superiors in Washington.

[ShaneGR]

64. Just want to point out something

That's an airforce rag which happened to be pissed off because they didn't think Clark gave the AF enough credit for the success in Kosovo.

That doesn't mean what they're saying isn't true, it just means you have to come up with some other source for that idea other than AF.

[Donna Zen]

17. the hunting of a candidate

Joe Conason's Journal

The more Republicans attack Clark now, the more obvious it will become that he is the nominee of their nightmares.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Sept. 17, 2003  |  They smear because they fear

Americans ought to be inspired by Wesley Clark's announcement this afternoon, whether they agree with his views or not. For years now, political analysts have complained that the "best people" were reluctant to stand for elected office because of the incessant fundraising, petty press scrutiny, family pressures and sundry other unpleasant aspects of a national campaign. The price of public life had simply gotten too high even for the most highly qualified, strongly motivated patriots. The former NATO supreme commander and Rhodes scholar is unquestionably among America's best -- and he has decided to run, come what may.

What is coming already -- as my friend Hesiod points out in a fascinating, thorough post on Counterspin Central -- is the predictable sliming of Clark by his moral inferiors, descending from Rush Limbaugh to David Horowitz. Hesiod lists the first tranche of right-wing accusations against Clark, which of course contradict each other (he was too tough, he's not tough enough, and so on). Logic, fact, relevance and decency will in no instance be permitted to intrude on the smearing that is about to begin. The radio gabblers and the Internet nutcases will smear Clark because they and their master Karl Rove fear him.

no link: sorry; however, I posted this because it is so so so to the point.

[ShaneGR]

66. Yeah, I read that

Looked like a pretty good rebuttal to wingnut/extreme left claims.

[AP]

24. You can read this two ways...

Should the US have acted sooner, risked US lives, to save thousands of Kosovoan lives?

That no Americans died can be an indication of selfish reluctance to take risks with real rewards.

Then again, Clark did want to use ground troops, so he was willing to take a risk to save lives which (isolationist, pro-misery, pro-chaos) RW'ers didn't want to take.

By the way, I think this question raises another issue...it distresses me that we think that this is an important qualification for president. I hope people don't think the most important quality for a president is where and when to place US troops.

[uptohere]

27. if you only have one goal its easy to achieve

now, what was the cost to the people living there and the native combatants for our lack of ground activity in this ? A lot more of those folks died directly or indirectly as a result as they were allowed to beat each others brains out while we flew planes around in a fairly ineffective campaign.

I guess its not a problem that those people got slaughtered. Their lives did not count as much huh ?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

28. You Should Note Clark Was the Biggest Proponent of Ground Troops

Which would have obviated the need for so much reliance on the air war, and accordingly decreased the number of civilian casualties.

The problem was that Clark did not obtain permission for ground troops, so he had to wage the war as best as he could, with the tools and resources available to him.

DTH

[uptohere]

30. Its true that this directive came from 1600 Penn Ave but

that totally negates the purported value of saying Clark had zero casualties. It was not his choice so it was not his "accomplishment".

Yet another supposed plus for the general that comes back to bite him in the bum.

Hes a nice guy but he's floating in a sea loaded with chum some of which he's directly responsible for. This mad pursuit of a military democrat candidate is a little silly. How much did it hurt Clinton ?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

37. But That's Not True Either

The accomplishment for having zero casualties is a result of BOTH overall strategy (Clinton's insistence that there be no ground troops) AND execution of that strategy (most of which must be credited to Clark). It's both, not just one.

DTH

[uptohere]

54. like I said, if you have only one goal, its easy to do

goal was zero casualties.

Plan was air only and an easy air campaign with plenty of time to maintain equipment, very little close engagement and massive ground casualties due to the limited effectiveness of the role.

And for all Clark's brilliant efforts, he got fired.

There is little to be proud of here.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

56. Do You Know Why He Got "Fired"?

He had personality conflicts with SecDef Cohen, a Republican. Clinton himself has spoken on this issue. Who are you going to believe, Clinton, or Cohen and the RW press, on this issue?

Clark did an admirable job in Kosovo. He also did the right thing in pushing for ground troops. It's not his fault that one hand was tied behind his back.

I applaud Clinton for making the decision to go into Kosovo, although it was a little late and too restricted.

DTH

[uptohere]

87. Does it matter ? SecDef works for the CIC. Do the math.

If Mr Clinton didn't want Gen Clark fired do you actually think it would have happened anyway ? It was painful for the President as Clark was FOB but it needed to be done to appease the sentiment from our friends in NATO.

There is no way to spin this to where it doesn't look bad. Better to face facts now, it only gets worse later.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

98. You Should Educate Yourself

Read Clinton's own words on the subject, as well as other close aides. He loved Clark, and did not fire him.

DTH

[uptohere]

102. yes he did love him, still does in fact

but even that could not save him. Considering the others who were saved, thats saying something.

I realize you're going to believe what you want to believe but you better believe that the right just can't wait to see Clark accepting the nomination. A dream come true, better than Dean. ANd thats saying something too.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

104. Clinton Said He Was Snookered

By Cohen and the defense guys. It was simple subterfuge, not any lack of desire to protect Clark on Clinton's part.

And your contention that the RW is dying to face Clark is in complete denial of reality. Witness the practical cessation of attacks on Dean by the RW, and the incessant barrage of attacks on Clark. Clark's military bona fides are untouchable, and that would completely demolish the Thugs' main trump card. Rove has also indicated that his preferred opponent is Dean.

Again, you might wish to educate yourself of the political realities here.

DTH

[uptohere]

108. like I said, you're going to believe what you want to believe

lets recap your arguments:

- Clinton is sufficiently out of touch to realize what happened to his pal
- Righist attacks AT THIS STAGE engender loyalty in the left and draw additional attention to the 'victim'. Any publicity is good publicity as they say.
- As to any bona fides, their touchability seems very questionable.

Good luck with your guy, you'll need it

[DoveTurnedHawk]

109. LOL. You Live in an Interesting World.

Clinton was a busy man, he can't be expected to be everywhere at once. Cohen pitched it as promoting the other guy, not demoting Clark.

And yes, I certainly will believe the Big Dog over some Thug, or you.

As for the right, they are desperate in their efforts to derail Clark. They are even clever enough to occasionally attack him with criticisms from the LEFT to split the base. It's too bad so many on the left appear to be falling for it.

Oh, and have I mentioned the poll showing Clark with the best chance against Bush? Wait, let me guess...it's a biased poll, right?

DTH

[uptohere]

111. this poll ?

the Newsweek one ? Kerry is a point over Clark and Gore leads them both (were he to run). Not a biased poll, a biased DoveTurnedHawk perhaps ?

All I want is a winner in 2004, I'm not out to be a forcefield on who I like. I came down on my boy Edwards after his aenemic showing in the first debate. We require the best we have to offer. Clark just isn't it. I find it interesting that he can't get any attention from the media, no free publicity. A number of posters here at DU would tell me that the media is manipulated by the right as they own it. Just more insanity from my crazy little world.



http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

or in gobbletygoop...


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Sept. 18-19, 2003. N=855 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4 (total sample).

.

"Suppose the next general election for president were being held TODAY and you had to choose between George W. Bush, the Republican, and , the Democrat -- who would you vote for?" If "Other" or "Undecided": "As of TODAY, do you LEAN more toward Bush, the Republican, or , the Democrat?"

.

George
W. Bush Wesley
Clark Other (vol.)/
Undecided
% % %
ALL 47 43 10
Men 52 41 7
Women 42 45 13
Republicans 82 11 7
Democrats 17 76 7
Independents 42 44 14
South 45 47 8
Non-South 47 41 12
.

George
W. Bush Howard
Dean Other (vol.)/
Undecided
% % %
9/18-19/03 52 38 10
9/11-12/03 53 37 10
7/03 53 38 9
.

George
W. Bush John
Kerry Other (vol.)/
Undecided
% % %
9/18-19/03 48 43 9
7/03 50 42 8
.

George
W. Bush Al
Gore Other (vol.)/
Undecided
% % %
9/18-19/03 48 45 7
11/02 54 39 7
10/02 58 36 6
9/02 58 36 6
.

George
W. Bush Hillary
Clinton Other (vol.)/
Undecided
% % %
9/18-19/03 50 43 7
9/11-12/03 51 41 8
11/02 55 40 5
10/02 58 38 4

[DoveTurnedHawk]

112. The Newsweek Poll, Here

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969441.asp?0cv=CA01

Clark is the closest of all declared candidates, and is pulling the most support of all of them.

If Gore decides to enter, he'd obviously transform the race, just like Clark has. But Gore has said many times he will not, and I'm willing to take him at his word.

Isn't it strange how I'm willing to take Clinton and Gore at their words, any you're not?

Oh, and as for this:

I find it interesting that he can't get any attention from the media, no free publicity.

Do you own a television? Because this comment discredits you far better than anything else I can say. Thanks for displaying your lack of knowledge on this, I appreciate you making my task much easier for me.

DTH

[uptohere]

113. yeah thats the poll Kerry and Clark at 43%

Yes I own a television, several. I see quite a lot more about Dean and Clark than the rest combined.

Good luck in your task. And what task is that by the way ? I've stated mine (finding a winner in 2004), perhaps you could grace us with yours.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

114. You Just Said He Couldn't Get Any Attention From the Media

I see quite a lot more about Dean and Clark than the rest combined.

<...>

I find it interesting that he <Clark> can't get any attention from the media, no free publicity.

So which is it?

As for my task, it's working to unseat Bush. While you claim that your task is the same, I don't think that posting slams of our strongest candidates is very constructive with respect to that task.

DTH

[uptohere]

116. the he in question is Edwards

my guys as I pointed out.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

120. Your Last Pronoun Reference Was to Clark

Hence my confusion. But thanks for the clarification.

DTH

[uptohere]

122. sorry for the confusion

.

[RichM]

31. You're bragging about the US bombing defenseless civilians. This isn't

a "selling point" for Clark -- it's an indictment.

The Kosovo war was not heroic (or humanitarian), any more than the Iraq war was. In fact, it was very much of a piece with the Iraq war. The main difference was simply that the US tried to pig up Iraq all for itself, while it was willing to share pieces of the former Yugoslavia with European allies (aka imperialist rivals).

Bombing defenseless civilians isn't really something you earn "bragging rights" for. However, when your entire political analysis is at the grade-school level of "Stick that in your WWIII pipe and smoke it!," I don't suppose you're quite ready to appreciate that.

[uptohere]

33. but Rich, they just foreigners, whats more important ? Us or them ?

apparantly for the original poster, its us. How liberal can you get !

[Pepperbelly]

35. unlike Iraq ...

there are many, many Kosovars who would disagree with you regarding the humanitarian costs of the Kosovo operation. As a matter of fact, as the dust settles and Milo stands at the bar to face justice, there are probably even some Serbs who understand the situation.

And yes, I am very glad that we suffered no combat casualties. Would you have felt better if a few hundred of our guys had died? Would that have been a superior outcome?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

38. In Fact, I Think There Was a Little Celebration Yesterday

Of thousands of happy, liberated Kosovars and one William Jefferson Clinton, that I was very gratified to see. :-)

DTH

[no name no slogan]

97. Yeah, dead Serbian civilians don't do much "celebrating" (n/t)

[RichM]

39. Let's look at the logic of your first point - that there are "many, many

Kosovars" who would disagree with me. If that logic meant anything, George W Bush would be a great president, because there are doubtless "many, many Americans" who think so. You can prove anything you want to, using that kind of logic.

Kosovo was presented to the Western media as a humanitarian intervention: the story-line was that we intervened purely to avert genocide of Albanian Kosovars at the hands of Serbs. There was nothing whatever in the story that implied self-interest.

Knowing what has since become obvious about the US media & US foreign policy, that alone should make one suspicious. A military action of imperialist powers, purely for humanitarian reasons, with no motives of self-interest? Who could possibly believe such a fairy tale?

In fact, if you look into it, there were plenty of material gains to be had by dismembering the former Yugoslavia. They just weren't mentioned in the mainstream media. And all the pre-war talk of "genocide" was very well disproven by independent investigators. (The "genocide" was just like Saddam's "WMD.")

So, the Kosovo thing was a complete lie, IMHO. This would be in keeping with US foreign policy generally since WWII -- in which, without exception, the US intervenes only for reasons of self-interest, while providing only lovely-sounding "highly moral" pretexts for the intervention, for public consumption.

Re your 2nd point: would I feel better if a few hundred of our guys died? That's a false choice. I'd feel better if our government hadn't undertaken the intervention, hadn't lied about the reasons for the intervention, and if the Pentagon budget was slashed.

[Pepperbelly]

40. if one depends upon ...

Serbs for commentary and opinion, one might have that view. However, the Kosovars who were victims of mythological ethnic cleansing have a different perspective.

[RichM]

41. Oh baloney. Is USA Today "Serb opinion?" Is the Detroit Free Press?

Read the first 6 paragraphs of this: (it will take you 30 seconds)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jul1999/kos-j06.shtml

It summarizes reports in mainstream US media that indicate how much the US government lied about the "genocide."

Here's a similar review of mainstream British & Canadian media:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/koso-n09.shtml

You don't have to even approve of the WSWS to see that here, they are specifically pointing out MAINSTREAM sources that indicate that the whole story-line about "genocide" was a grotesque distortion of the truth.

[MariMayans]

42. yeah, but..

as cynical as I am about the way the story was dressed up to turn Milosovic into Hitler (This happens every war, it's interesting that the propaganda works well enough for one war but the next war it's not the last bad guy with the hitler hat, it's Hitler again) and the Croats weren't much better, there really were horrible things happening that dwarf our state terror excercises there. I think they were mostly unnecessary since what toppled Slobo was Russia pulling the plug on him so all the rest of it was just gratuitous but to deny that his government was committing war crimes isn't fair. Just because they were dressed up and exagerated (Forced brothels being called rape camps is another example) doesn't mean that attrocities weren't happening.

[Pepperbelly]

44. Give me a break ...

There were significant atrocities committed by the Serbs in Kosovo. Fringe authorities like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as well as AP, Reuters, the British government, and the BBC have all reported on them. Here are a few links to peruse. Enjoy.

http://www.kosovo.mod.uk/atrocities.htm

http://www.hrw.org/press/1999/jul/kos0726.htm

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR700711998

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR700631998

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR701161999

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR700372000

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR700801999

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR700062000

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR700591998

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR700031999

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR700182001

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR700632000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/368524.stm

http://www.alb-net.com/pipermail/kcc-news/1999-June/000088.html

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/990620-kosovo05.htm

Check it out, dude. Who knows? You might even find a line or two that somehow supports your thesis.

[RichM]

45. Your Amnesty links don't work. And you miss the point, which is NOT any

claim that the Serbs committed NO atrocities, but that the Western media grossly exaggerated & misrepresented these incidents, to justify a war that actually had OTHER motivations.

[Pepperbelly]

46. and your logical point in that is ...

that the action to stop the atrocities was not justified?

on eidt: re the links ... go to amnesty international and do the search for yourself. Perhaps I made a mistake in my c&p. It happens on occasion. :shrug:

[RichM]

47. Yes, of course, because the action had little to do with the atrocities --

What really happened in Kosovo, IMO, is that the NATO powers used the ethnic strife in the region as a fine-sounding pretext for a war that had material & geostrategic goals as its REAL objectives. There were some atrocities, yes, but far fewer than originally stated in Western press reports. (The numbers initially bandied about were in the hundreds of thousands. After the war was over, this was whittled down to maybe 3000 -- always on the inside pages of newspapers, of course.) These were the basis for presenting the thing as "humanitarian intervention."

It's very much the same thing as claiming that we went into Iraq, say, to "liberate its people from Saddam," when we really went in for oil & geostrategic reasons.

[Pepperbelly]

51. except

for this: Clinton stood by far too long when the problems in Bosnia were ratcheting up and up and up. Perhaps the atrocities were exagerated, perhaps not but they were significant and widespread. Clinton's experience in Bosnia had to tell him that this situation, too, was ripe to ratchet up in intensity until it reached the level of intensity in Bosnia.

I do not see a particular geo-political advantage to the Kosovo intervention nor any particular economic advantage accrued. What I did see was an action that stopped the atrocities dead in their tracks. I see a region now that is much more stable and a slowly improving quality of life for the people living there. I see an effective intervention that was, IMO, motivated by humanitarian concerns and to stem the tide of suffering.

[RichM]

57. You don't see a geo-polit. advantage or econ. benefit from Kosovo?

There are huge mineral mines that the US & UK now control -- Google on "Trepca Mining Complex."

Google on "Camp Bondsteel" -- a huge US military base (where Halliburton handles the supply contracts, natch)

[Pepperbelly]

58. sorry but ...

those are not sufficient motivations to overplay the reason for the war nor would they serve even the most nefarious enough to do so. Southern Europe has always been and will continue to be far more trouble to the rest of the world than the total value of all its minerals, industrial output, and strategic value. It has always, except during the reign of Tito, been a source of much instability across Euroasia.

I do not buy that at all as a reason for Bill Clinton to go into it. Unlike Bush, I do not think Bill took civilian casualties cavalierly at all.

[RichM]

59. Your argument here amounts to "I believe, because I want to believe."

At that level, nothing anyone says can convince you. You're making a completely subjective emotional judgement. "Southern Europe has always been ... far more trouble to the rest of the world than the total value of all its minerals..."

What kind of statement is that? What is that based on? You'd probably manage to come up with exactly ONE point to support that -- the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Not only is that insufficient to make the point you're claiming here, it's also a red herring in history. World War I did not start because of that assassination. That is merely the version they teach you in US high schools, which, very typically, omits all the real dynamics. World War I started because of conflicts of interests among the major capitalist powers -- the Sarajevo assassination was just the EXCUSE for the war.

Do you really think you know enough to make an informed comparison between the "total value of all (Southern Europe's) minerals, industrial output, and strategic value," and how much trouble it was presenting to the rest of the world? You're really sticking your neck out, there. // And (in what's a much easier question), does it really sound believably like US foreign policy to you, to intervene with bombers for "humanitarian reasons," while the US lifts not a finger in humanitarian crises that are hundreds of times worse (as in Rwanda)?

[Pepperbelly]

62. I note that you are shifting your position constantly in this discussion &

have attempted to turn it from an unsupportable, immoral position to one that is cloudy and non-specific, like urethiritis. When it comes to ascribing motives, NO one is qualified to say what anyone else's motives are. One can only surmise based on how the SURMISER himself views morality and the world. Remember, you generate your motivation speculation purely from within and often it is little more than projecting.

So now we get to the meat of the question. Did you or did you not support the military intervention in Kosovo? If you did, you are faced with the burden of the civilian casualties from the bombing. If not, you are burdened with defending the indefensible, that the atrocities should have been allowed to continue. You would also be burdened with maintaining that the chaos in the former Yugolavia would have been superior to the stability now evidenced in the region as well as the slowly improving lives of the people. Did it suck when the civilians were killed? It certainly did, But does that mean that we should not have done it|?

Hell, no it doesn't. While many Serbs will disagree, you would find much disagreement with the ethnic Albanians who do not now have to live in fear of a knock in the middle of the night.

[ShaneGR]

65. Pepper

Obviously logic has no meaning, move along.

[Code_Name_D]

88. But.. but.. but..

Did you or did you not support the military intervention in Kosovo? If you did, you are faced with the burden of the civilian casualties from the bombing.

But Clark was in comand of that theitor, right? Why would he bomb cavilan targets? If he DID bomb cavilan targets, than wouldn't Clark be guilty of war crimes? If and outside observer has "blood on his hands for cavilan casulties" than wouldn't the TRUE burden of the crime fall upon the comanders in the theaiter, BEFORE the outside observer? To do other wise is, well its hypocracy.

[VolcanoJen]

52. I vividly remember the Kosovo situation before NATO...

... involvement. I remember a tragic piece that Peter Jennings did about the plague of genocide being unleashed by Milosevic, and I can remember screaming at my television, wondering why in the hell America was staying silent and doing nothing about it. Back then, I felt as though we had forgotten the words "Never Again."

When we took the initiative to rid the world of Milosevic, I was proud of my government. I was pleased to see our weapons of mass destruction being used for a reason that didn't involve land and oil grabs. I'm very, very aware that many liberals on this board disagree with me strongly on this issue, and that's ok. But I, for one, felt proud of my country when it stood up against a genocidal maniac in Europe, for the second time in a century.

That's just the way I feel, even if its unpopular, and even though I will likely now be attacked as a genocidal maniac myself...

[DoveTurnedHawk]

53. You Genocidal Maniac!

Just kidding. :D

:loveya:

DTH

[VolcanoJen]

55. Warmonger!!!! You love war!! Admit it!!

:loveya:

[ShaneGR]

63. Hey, that was a really nice post

Seriously, cool post. I felt the same way back then.

[bpilgrim]

107. they had MUCH BETTER spin for that war...

but consider who was driving the bus back then, the BIG DAWG.

surely if you learned we caused more problems - death and destruction and injury - then you would be appauld, right?

i think you need to learn about the facts that have come out by independant research before you make up your fair and ballanced mind.

:hi:

peace

[Devils Advocate NZ]

90. I remember that this was the same media - and often the same people

That claimed that Iraq was an imediate threat to the world and was amassing thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons, not to mention nukes, and that Iraq had to be liberated.

I also remember that this was the SAME media, and often the SAME people who LIED about Clinton and Gore, and about the STOLEN ELECTION.

Why do you believe them when it supports your ideas, but disbelieve them when they contradict your ideas?

Kosovo was another case of the CIA sponsoring Muslim fundamentalist terrorists to overthrow a nation. When it seemed that the terrorists were going to lose, then along came the US to "save" them from "genocide", which seemingly failed to appear.

When was the last time you heard a mainstream media report about the Milosevic trial? Could it be that the trial is NOT showing what the US wanted it to show?

[bpilgrim]

106. To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia by: Michael Parenti

the book...
http://www.boondocksnet.com/cgi-perl/apfh-item_id-1859843662-search_type-AsinSearch-locale-us.html

or an online article...
http://www.michaelparenti.org/YugoslavSojourn.html

surely you don't still believe your teeVee?

not to mention that there haven't been ANY evidence of genocide in fact the evidence shows more death and disruption caused by NATO themselves.

read the article above for more details.

:hi:

peace

[madrchsod]

50. you are right

read my post on bill the liberator..i guess the people love him for liberating them ..my ,my, that bad mr clark and clinton....

[ShaneGR]

60. Yeah, seemed to me they were throwing roses or something

Bush only wishes he had enough intelligence to complete a war.

[auburnlib]

67. both sucked

I didn't agree with either "war" so tell me, what is the difference between Clark and Clinton leading a war that liberated those in Kosovo and Bush leading a war that was also intended to liberate the Iraqis?
*I wouldn't exactly call the military action in Kosovo a war. There wasn't a ground campaign and it was just dropping bombs.

[Pepperbelly]

68. Jebus!

How many times do we have to go over this?

Saying 6=2 does not make it so. They were nothing close to alike. Review the posts on this thread, follow links and for God's sake, don't give us that sort of equivilency argument after reams of information and argumentation have been committed to electrons that make the assertion seem shallow and ill-conceived.

[ShaneGR]

69. I'll tell you the difference

Kosovo war involved an international coalition simply saving people despite no oil or landgrab was involved. They did it out of pity.

Iraq war involved no real international coalition and definitely involved oil and a bigtime empire landgrab.

Care to debate that?????????????????????????????????????????

[auburnlib]

70. not so

Their was an international coalition for Iraq but since it wasn't recognized by the UN no one seemed to notice. I will agree that it certainly didn't look like there was a coalition since the U.S. and Britain have done basically everything. Also, America hasn't taken over Iraq...yet. Right now we are just witnessing a terribly flawed reconstruction effort. While the war was successful, the post-war has been a disaster. I also agree that oil was one of the biggest factors involved in the real reasons for war. It wasn't in the sense of America wanting to "steal" oil but it was a major factor. I doubt that we will ever see Iraq: the new American territory or Iraq: the fifty-first state.

[ShaneGR]

79. My point exactly

Compare what you just said to what happened in Kosovo.

Go ahead, be objective!

[ComerPerro]

93. Bush did not lead a war that was intended to liberate ANYONE

It was only intended to set up American dominance. Read www.newamericancentury.org

[sungkathak]

71. From Waco to Yugoslavia:

From Waco to Yugoslavia:

The US military was at Waco
General Wesley Clark was involved in the siege and final assault near Waco, Texas that killed, by a combination of toxic gas and fire, at least 82 people including some three dozen women, children and infants. As outlandish as this claim may seem, it's a reasonable conclusion that can be drawn by any fair minded person who takes the time to examine the evidence. Further, there is substantial circumstantial evidence that, Clark, in addition to acting as a tactical consultant, may, in fact, have been the prime architect and commander of the entire operation.

If this is true, why is it important? First, it represents a clear violation of US law. The military is banned from involvement in the enforcement of US civil law except under certain carefully defined circumstances. The incident at Waco did not come even close to legally qualifying. Second, it casts light on some of the more outrageous tactics used in the war against Yugoslavia, in particular the bombing attacks on Yugoslavian news media, essential life support services, and on civilians, the latter which were sometimes, but not always, described as "accidents." Third, President Clinton began the year with the statement that he is considering a Pentagon proposal to create a new US military command, commander-in-chief for the defense of the continental U.S., a first in peace time and an alarming move for reasons described in "Bombing 'suspended' - and now, the future"

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/clark.htm

[Pepperbelly]

75. why in the world would ...

you post drivel from the Patriot network? At a Democratic board no less?

This from their home page:

"American Patriot Friends Network a/k/a American Patriot Fax Network was founded Feb. 21, 1993. We started with faxing daily reports from the Weaver-Harris trials. Then on Feb. 28 1993, The BATF launched Operation Showtime - "The Siege on the Branch Davidians". From this point, it's been the Death of Vince Foster, the Oklahoma Bombing, TWA-800, The Train Deaths, Bio-War, on and on. We are not anti-government, we are anti-corrupt-government. A Patriot is one who loves God, Family and Country....."

[ShaneGR]

78. I wonder why?????????

Perhaps he'll let us know on his 18th post

[IndianaGreen]

72. How many civilian casualties from NATO bombing? Clark must answer!

©2000 Human Rights Watch /William M. Arkin

One civilian was killed in the April 4 bombing of the New Belgrade Heating Plant (incident No. 7). The central steam generating plant had no military function.

Source: Human Rights Watch

This is from a 2000 Human Rights Watch report, not from the GOP:

Pentagon Report Whitewashes Civilian Deaths in Yugoslavia

(Washington, February 8, 2000) -- The U.S. Defense Department review of the NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia shows that the alliance has failed to learn from its mistakes in killing civilians, Human Rights Watch charged today.

The Pentagon review, released today in the course of Defense Secretary William Cohen's testimony before Congress, states that the bombing campaign was "the most precise and lowest-collateral-damage air operation ever conducted" (p. xvii), but provides no evidence to substantiate this summary assertion, nor any discussion of how many civilians died, why, or whether these deaths could have been avoided.

Meanwhile, a 79-page Human Rights Watch report released yesterday documents that the number of incidents in which civilians were killed in the NATO air campaign in Yugoslavia is at least three times as high as what the Pentagon has claimed.

"Congress should insist that the Pentagon produce a franker and more critical self-assessment," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.

Roth noted that for every bomb dropped and missile launched, civilians were roughly twice as likely to die in Yugoslavia as they were during the 1991 allied bombing campaign in Iraq.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/nato208.htm

CIVILIAN DEATHS IN THE NATO AIR CAMPAIGN

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/

[ShaneGR]

77. Thought

Yeah, but how quickly did Serbia leave Kosovo after there power went out? Pretty quickly. How many lives were saved because those plants went kaput? A lot.

You're not using logic. And what was the overall good? Serbia overthrew a dictator and elected a new President. Kosovo was spared any further death.

Milosevic is in the Hague.




COMPARE THAT TO IRAQ.

[IndianaGreen]

81. This is the same logic Bush is using about Iraq

You are saying the same thing Bush is saying about Iraq, that Iraqis are better off today than they were under Saddam. Ask the average Iraqi if he is better off living under the American jackboots!

Ask the civilians killed by NATO bombing in Kosovo if they are better off!

[uptohere]

89. there is one difference and it's significant

In Iraq with the committment of ground troops, the significant battle portion was a couple weeks and with very little actual fighting involved. With Kosovo there were months and months of bloody ground fighting that left the civilian population freezing and starving in winter.

[nolabels]

101. Yea, and in the end Milosevic stayed in power

Only after much effort did Corporate America reach it's goal. Do they even spend ten dollars a person on US Presidential elections

http://www.iacboston.org/international/international_files.cfm?id=2001.06.30.144130

AS U.S "GLOBALIZES" BALKANS:
NATO COURT CALLS RESISTANCE A CRIME
Yugoslav Socialists Stand up for Milosevic
By Gloria La Riva
Belgrade, Yugoslavia

July 5, 2001--In a stunning blow to Yugoslavia's sovereignty, Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic on June 28 secretly surrendered former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic into the hands of the NATO powers that brutally bombed Yugoslavia in 1999.

Djindjic is seen as the number one U.S. agent in Yugoslavia.

This blow aroused widespread anger in Yugoslavia and solidarity with the kidnapped former president from progressive world leaders and anti-war activists. Among them was internationally known human rights attorney Ramsey Clark, who spoke at a protest rally in Belgrade the following night. Clark and this writer, Gloria La Riva, constituted a delegation from the International Action Center, which had played a leading role in organizing protests in the United States against NATO's war on Yugoslavia in 1999.

Milosevic had been taken by military helicopter to the NATO base in Tuzla, Bosnia, at 6 p.m. on the previous day and then transported to The Hague in the Netherlands. Djindjic announced the former president's extradition at 6:30 p.m.

By 8 p.m., thousands of people had taken to the streets in protest.
(snip)
(snip)
To assure a defeat for Milosevic, the U.S. and the European Union had pumped more than $100 million into the DOS election campaign, a vast amount for a relatively poor country of 10 million people.
(snip)

And even after all that they were not sure what the real outcome of the election was (sound familiar)

[NNN0LHI]

73. If McCain had his way this would not have been the case though

I can remember when Kosovo seemed to be dragging on he was asked what should be done. His answer was we have to get some boots on the ground there. That is when I wrote him off for good.

Don

[Feanorcurufinwe]

86. He's good on fighting pork, other than that

he's a raving right-winger.

[Procopius]

91. You are wrong friend

There were some deaths associated with getting the Apache attack helicopters into battle.

[Procopius]

92. -More-

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/kosovo_apache990517.html

[Tinoire]

94. Yes but those were classified as training accidents

It's the same thing we do when any of our Special Forces guys are killed in undeclared squirmishes... We write it off as a training accident or a helicopter crash. You'd be amazed how many helicopter crashes and training accidents they have at Ft. Bragg.

[Pastiche423]

115. I have heard that

many times, but not from one in the know. It is a chilling confirmation of what I have thought to be true.

Truly barbaric.

[nolabels]

118. Nice to see you are still with us, the other day somebody put a ......

post up looking for you. Old stuff I am sure. Anyway I want to thank you for this thread you started a while back

What You Need To Know About Wesley Clark
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=226326