Does anyone else get the willies from the Kosovo action???
- Thread starter snoman
- Start date
From CNN.com:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton telephoned the U.S. pilot of the F-117A stealth fighter-bomber that crashed over Yugoslavia and also made congratulatory calls to several members of the team that rescued him, the White House said Monday.
Wow. My feelings for Billy Jeff have made a 180-degree turn. He's showing his concern and compassion for our troops.
(snicker)
I'd be more impressed if he picked up an M-16 and led the way. Like my buddy Maurice Johnson says, "You don't sit in the bunker and yell 'Charge!', you grab your gun and yell 'Follow me!'"
------------------
"Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
(The sword does not kill; it is a tool in the hands of the killer.)
--Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton telephoned the U.S. pilot of the F-117A stealth fighter-bomber that crashed over Yugoslavia and also made congratulatory calls to several members of the team that rescued him, the White House said Monday.
Wow. My feelings for Billy Jeff have made a 180-degree turn. He's showing his concern and compassion for our troops.
(snicker)
I'd be more impressed if he picked up an M-16 and led the way. Like my buddy Maurice Johnson says, "You don't sit in the bunker and yell 'Charge!', you grab your gun and yell 'Follow me!'"
------------------
"Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
(The sword does not kill; it is a tool in the hands of the killer.)
--Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD)
In brief (really!):
Spartacus:
I agree, there is no credible transatlantic (or trans-pacific) threat against the US, nor will there be for the forseeable future. Thats not what I'm claiming.
What I am claiming is that there are credible threats against US _interests_ abroad that require swift attention. Yes, I know this differs from the isolationist viewpoints of our founding fathers and from many americans today. We're headed into an extended debate about the relative merits of isolationism v. nonisolationism, and that way madness lies.
Plus, its not exactly germane to this thread. Probably best to agree to disagree.
To the issue of Bombing v Ground troops:
Well, this administration has _finally_, I think, pushed its luck too far. We got lucky in Mog, we got lucky in Haiti, we got lucky with North Korea, and we've been lucky with Saddam. I have read the news reports, I've thought about it in as unbiased a manner as I can, and I cannot find anything to make it look like anything more than dumb luck.
So lemme see if I get this right:
Scenario #1:
We bomb them enough that they actually stop. We win.
Scenario #2: we bomb them and they don't stop. We then let them get on with murdering innocents. They win.
Scenario #3: We bomb them, they don't stop, and we send in ground troops to stop them. Nobody wins, and its a major mess.
Scenario #4: We bomb them, they run all of the albanians out of the country, creating a major UN refugee headache and get EVERYONE in the region pissed off at the US. We end up expending several million bucks worth of bombs, missiles, and aircraft to hasten along the serbian's work, and destroy local relations to boot. They win.
Hmmm.
It looks more and more like Clinton was betting the farm on option #1 coming true and then doing a wait-and-see and delaying making more substantive plans. This is poor leadership regardless (you should ALWAYS think ahead. Bonehead!), but especially so if you realise that systematic bombing campaigns have NEVER EVER, on their own, achieved anything more than tactical goals. Battle of Britain? Pissed off the brits, made them fight harder. Bombing of germany: Devastated a nation, Didn't make them surrender. Japan: okay...at the end they did surrender, but it was after one year of utter devastation at the hands of B-29s (which did not shake them), an invasion poised to go off that would be agony to both sides, AND two cities wiped off the face of the earth by nukes. Vietnam: lets not go there. Iraq: devastated a military, but look who had to go in and grab the ground and hold it...foot soldiers and armour.
Now, ON TOP OF THIS, we have this message being handed out at the highest levels (Clinton and Albright and Holbrooke):
'Ground troops WILL NOT BE USED.'
Okay. So now we have just told Milo and company that all he has to do is survive a bombing campaign long enough to murder or oust all of the Albanians, and he has won. We're not going to go in and take back Kosovo. We're not gonna take Belgrade. We'll posture and whine and slap sanctions on him, but he will have what he wants. All he needs to do is endure a little aerial hardship for a few weeks.
Now, there is the possibility that Clinton is lying (Really! Don't look so shocked!) and ground troops WILL be used. Now, moving beyond the morality of lying to your constituency, he is delivering an unclear message to Milo. _IF_ you intend to use ground troops, you tell him this from the start. You say "if you don't stop, we'll bomb. If you still don't stop, we'll send in troops and clean your clock."
By saying ground troops won't be used, Clinton has severely increased the likelihood that they _will_ be used, or that we're gonna leave the job half-done. Lovely.
Okay, enough soapboxing for one day.
3. Conspiracy theories: I don't buy them. Most conspiracies end up looking like Watergate or Iran Contra. People run their mouth and bungle somewhere, and you can't keep anyone silent for long. Yeah, yeah, I know...I'm bucking a trend on this board. But I see enough clearly outlined evil intent that I don't feel the need to go looking for it elsewhere.
of course, those are just the conspiracies that got _caught_....hmmmm....*cue theme to X-Files*
Mike
Spartacus:
I agree, there is no credible transatlantic (or trans-pacific) threat against the US, nor will there be for the forseeable future. Thats not what I'm claiming.
What I am claiming is that there are credible threats against US _interests_ abroad that require swift attention. Yes, I know this differs from the isolationist viewpoints of our founding fathers and from many americans today. We're headed into an extended debate about the relative merits of isolationism v. nonisolationism, and that way madness lies.
Plus, its not exactly germane to this thread. Probably best to agree to disagree.To the issue of Bombing v Ground troops:
Well, this administration has _finally_, I think, pushed its luck too far. We got lucky in Mog, we got lucky in Haiti, we got lucky with North Korea, and we've been lucky with Saddam. I have read the news reports, I've thought about it in as unbiased a manner as I can, and I cannot find anything to make it look like anything more than dumb luck.
So lemme see if I get this right:
Scenario #1:
We bomb them enough that they actually stop. We win.
Scenario #2: we bomb them and they don't stop. We then let them get on with murdering innocents. They win.
Scenario #3: We bomb them, they don't stop, and we send in ground troops to stop them. Nobody wins, and its a major mess.
Scenario #4: We bomb them, they run all of the albanians out of the country, creating a major UN refugee headache and get EVERYONE in the region pissed off at the US. We end up expending several million bucks worth of bombs, missiles, and aircraft to hasten along the serbian's work, and destroy local relations to boot. They win.
Hmmm.
It looks more and more like Clinton was betting the farm on option #1 coming true and then doing a wait-and-see and delaying making more substantive plans. This is poor leadership regardless (you should ALWAYS think ahead. Bonehead!), but especially so if you realise that systematic bombing campaigns have NEVER EVER, on their own, achieved anything more than tactical goals. Battle of Britain? Pissed off the brits, made them fight harder. Bombing of germany: Devastated a nation, Didn't make them surrender. Japan: okay...at the end they did surrender, but it was after one year of utter devastation at the hands of B-29s (which did not shake them), an invasion poised to go off that would be agony to both sides, AND two cities wiped off the face of the earth by nukes. Vietnam: lets not go there. Iraq: devastated a military, but look who had to go in and grab the ground and hold it...foot soldiers and armour.
Now, ON TOP OF THIS, we have this message being handed out at the highest levels (Clinton and Albright and Holbrooke):
'Ground troops WILL NOT BE USED.'
Okay. So now we have just told Milo and company that all he has to do is survive a bombing campaign long enough to murder or oust all of the Albanians, and he has won. We're not going to go in and take back Kosovo. We're not gonna take Belgrade. We'll posture and whine and slap sanctions on him, but he will have what he wants. All he needs to do is endure a little aerial hardship for a few weeks.
Now, there is the possibility that Clinton is lying (Really! Don't look so shocked!) and ground troops WILL be used. Now, moving beyond the morality of lying to your constituency, he is delivering an unclear message to Milo. _IF_ you intend to use ground troops, you tell him this from the start. You say "if you don't stop, we'll bomb. If you still don't stop, we'll send in troops and clean your clock."
By saying ground troops won't be used, Clinton has severely increased the likelihood that they _will_ be used, or that we're gonna leave the job half-done. Lovely.
Okay, enough soapboxing for one day.
3. Conspiracy theories: I don't buy them. Most conspiracies end up looking like Watergate or Iran Contra. People run their mouth and bungle somewhere, and you can't keep anyone silent for long. Yeah, yeah, I know...I'm bucking a trend on this board. But I see enough clearly outlined evil intent that I don't feel the need to go looking for it elsewhere.
of course, those are just the conspiracies that got _caught_....hmmmm....*cue theme to X-Files*
Mike
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
As sort of a followup to Coronach's last post, I ask if anyone has heard of any suggestions about strategy from the Joint Chiefs? Naive little non-cynic that I am, I believe that our military leadership is responsible for planning or planning assistance in strategic matters...
It appears that all strategy emanates from Klinton and a few other such highly highly qualified military strategists. It also seems that they believe they fully understand the psychology of the Serbs.
I submit they are suffering from delusions of competency.
If the Nazis could not control the Serbs with 700,000 troops on the ground, how are we (or NATO) gonna do it? Also remember that the Nazis were helped by Croats and Albanians, who were still continuing a 500-year old squabble. Now, it's payback time. And, as came from Nam, "Paybacks are (BLEEP)".
It further seems to me that if there is some Grand Conspiracy of world domination, these conspiracists are the most incompetent bunch of idiots running loose without leashes. They're certainly doing a lousy job of running the show, if they do indeed exist. Given the track record to date, of world control or domination, I don't see anything to fear from the Bilderbergs, the TriLateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, or anyone else.
Pick a subject: Crime? Economics? War? Someone's in "control"? They control this world about as well as I control my wife's shopping sprees!
Ta, ta, Art
It appears that all strategy emanates from Klinton and a few other such highly highly qualified military strategists. It also seems that they believe they fully understand the psychology of the Serbs.
I submit they are suffering from delusions of competency.
If the Nazis could not control the Serbs with 700,000 troops on the ground, how are we (or NATO) gonna do it? Also remember that the Nazis were helped by Croats and Albanians, who were still continuing a 500-year old squabble. Now, it's payback time. And, as came from Nam, "Paybacks are (BLEEP)".
It further seems to me that if there is some Grand Conspiracy of world domination, these conspiracists are the most incompetent bunch of idiots running loose without leashes. They're certainly doing a lousy job of running the show, if they do indeed exist. Given the track record to date, of world control or domination, I don't see anything to fear from the Bilderbergs, the TriLateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, or anyone else.
Pick a subject: Crime? Economics? War? Someone's in "control"? They control this world about as well as I control my wife's shopping sprees!
Ta, ta, Art
Yeah. We've drawn down our forces enough that if we really do get ourselves embroiled in this war, we will not have the reserves to face down a chinese move on Taiwan, a Chinese-supported move my North Korea on South Korea or even an Indian move on Sri Lanka. Plus, India and Pakistan bear watching (two mortal enemies with Nukes. Lovely!).
If you're scaling down forces, you need to use more discretion in picking your fights...which we (apparently) are not doing.
And as far as having the Joint Chiefs or some theater commander explaining strategy, look at the entire way we're conducting this affair. Bush had the wisdom to set a goal, set up the GENERAL rules of the game, hand the saw to the military, and let them go to work. Result? The most lopsided victory in recent military history.
Now, mind you, we still have Saddam to deal with, but that was a result of the pre-set goal (if you took him out, the coalition would have crumbled, US diplomacy would have been set back a few decades...all to replace him with some other person who would be just as obnoxious an a*****e). But I digress.
In this affair we SEEM to be getting the same type of political involvement in the planning and execution as we had in Viet Nam, where Johnson did such memorable things as demanding a stand (and declarable victory) at Khe Sahn. We all know how well that little war went.
of course, its not that bad yet, and there may be a Plan, and this still may go okay. He's lucked his way out of messes before.
Mike
If you're scaling down forces, you need to use more discretion in picking your fights...which we (apparently) are not doing.
And as far as having the Joint Chiefs or some theater commander explaining strategy, look at the entire way we're conducting this affair. Bush had the wisdom to set a goal, set up the GENERAL rules of the game, hand the saw to the military, and let them go to work. Result? The most lopsided victory in recent military history.
Now, mind you, we still have Saddam to deal with, but that was a result of the pre-set goal (if you took him out, the coalition would have crumbled, US diplomacy would have been set back a few decades...all to replace him with some other person who would be just as obnoxious an a*****e). But I digress.
In this affair we SEEM to be getting the same type of political involvement in the planning and execution as we had in Viet Nam, where Johnson did such memorable things as demanding a stand (and declarable victory) at Khe Sahn. We all know how well that little war went.
of course, its not that bad yet, and there may be a Plan, and this still may go okay. He's lucked his way out of messes before.
Mike
Rob Pincus
New member
I don't know if its been covered already, but I really got the willies when Primokov (sp?) went over there.
What if a KLA type had taken the opportunity to shoot him in the eye while he was in Belgrade? A' La "Arch Duke Primokov"..... What is it that history always does? I forget.
------------------
-Essayons
What if a KLA type had taken the opportunity to shoot him in the eye while he was in Belgrade? A' La "Arch Duke Primokov"..... What is it that history always does? I forget.
------------------
-Essayons
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Coronach,
I know of no American interests that are so overwhelmingly vital that there is no time for Congress to be consulted. Certainly none that require giving the President what amounts to dictatorial "emergency" powers. Maybe if Monica was kidnapped by a foreign power?
I first posted this on another thread but though it might be pertinent here:
"There is no substitute for victory."
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur
What is victory? In war, victory is obtaining the strategic objectives which are selected by the civil and military authorities of the nation prosecuting the war. The war plan is developed based on the strategic objectives. If the strategic objectives are not clearly defined then the war plan cannot be clearly developed. It is possible to win every engagement and battle tactically but to lose the war strategically.
Vietnam demonstrated this exquisitely but apparently Mr. Clinton never learned.
People have asked,"What's the exit plan?" If the US is basing its actions on sound strategic concepts then the answer is simple. Victory.
The stated objective of the US is the acquiescence of the Yugoslav government to a peace agreement with Kosovan rebels which accepts "peacekeeping" forces in Kosovo. The battle plan is to bomb them into acceptance of this. A gentleman you may remember had the same plan about a half century ago. Adolf Hitler. His attempt to bomb Britain into defeat failed. There is not one instance of air power ever being the sole factor in obtaining military victory. Not ever. I would like to know what basis Mr. Clinton and especially his military advisers have for expecting it to succeed in this instance.
"You know you never defeated us on the battlefield," said the American colonel.
The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. "That may be so," he replied,"but it is also irrelevant."
Conversation in Hanoi, April 25 1975 between Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr., the Chief, Negotiations Division, U.S. Delegation. Four Party Joint Military Team and Colonel Tu, Chief, North Vietnamese Delegation.
I know of no American interests that are so overwhelmingly vital that there is no time for Congress to be consulted. Certainly none that require giving the President what amounts to dictatorial "emergency" powers. Maybe if Monica was kidnapped by a foreign power?
I first posted this on another thread but though it might be pertinent here:
"There is no substitute for victory."
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur
What is victory? In war, victory is obtaining the strategic objectives which are selected by the civil and military authorities of the nation prosecuting the war. The war plan is developed based on the strategic objectives. If the strategic objectives are not clearly defined then the war plan cannot be clearly developed. It is possible to win every engagement and battle tactically but to lose the war strategically.
Vietnam demonstrated this exquisitely but apparently Mr. Clinton never learned.
People have asked,"What's the exit plan?" If the US is basing its actions on sound strategic concepts then the answer is simple. Victory.
The stated objective of the US is the acquiescence of the Yugoslav government to a peace agreement with Kosovan rebels which accepts "peacekeeping" forces in Kosovo. The battle plan is to bomb them into acceptance of this. A gentleman you may remember had the same plan about a half century ago. Adolf Hitler. His attempt to bomb Britain into defeat failed. There is not one instance of air power ever being the sole factor in obtaining military victory. Not ever. I would like to know what basis Mr. Clinton and especially his military advisers have for expecting it to succeed in this instance.
"You know you never defeated us on the battlefield," said the American colonel.
The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. "That may be so," he replied,"but it is also irrelevant."
Conversation in Hanoi, April 25 1975 between Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr., the Chief, Negotiations Division, U.S. Delegation. Four Party Joint Military Team and Colonel Tu, Chief, North Vietnamese Delegation.
Spartacus: once again, we run afoul of the isolationism v nonisolationism debate. We could debate this on an entirely different thread for as long as we both live.
I'm firmly in the camp that yes, there ARE valid US interests abroad that require swift actions to defend and further...too swift for congressional consultation. Even more important is maintaining the perception that we can and will defend them without making it a congressional issue...since that means, de facto, that we wouldn't do s**t to anyone who messed with them. You obviously are not in this camp with me. Ah well.
And as to air power and warfare? yes yes yes. Here we agree completely. This so-called Plan ain't gonna work. Not unless there is some significant portion of it that we are not hearing. (possible...and I actually hope there is...because we're looking like asses, here).
Lets also not be too swift to condemn Clinton's military advisors....the ones who are actually military. This whole affair reeks of a cluster**** in which the military, bound by code and honour to obey the civilian authority, is being put in the uncomfortable position of following the orders of a crew of idiots. There are few jobs I would want less than Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs right about now...'spearcatcher' and 'OC Spray Test Subject' are two of them.
Mike
I'm firmly in the camp that yes, there ARE valid US interests abroad that require swift actions to defend and further...too swift for congressional consultation. Even more important is maintaining the perception that we can and will defend them without making it a congressional issue...since that means, de facto, that we wouldn't do s**t to anyone who messed with them. You obviously are not in this camp with me. Ah well.
And as to air power and warfare? yes yes yes. Here we agree completely. This so-called Plan ain't gonna work. Not unless there is some significant portion of it that we are not hearing. (possible...and I actually hope there is...because we're looking like asses, here).
Lets also not be too swift to condemn Clinton's military advisors....the ones who are actually military. This whole affair reeks of a cluster**** in which the military, bound by code and honour to obey the civilian authority, is being put in the uncomfortable position of following the orders of a crew of idiots. There are few jobs I would want less than Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs right about now...'spearcatcher' and 'OC Spray Test Subject' are two of them.
Mike
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Coronach,
We are not as far apart regarding isolationism as you might think. I simply want the Constitution followed as well as basic strategic concepts.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have a duty to submit to civil authority-agreed. They also have a duty to bluntly tell the civil authority what will not work militarily. When the executive branch ignores that advice they have a third duty which thus far they have failed at- the duty to resign in protest of the executive branch's military policy and en masse take the issue to Congress and the people. The Joints Chiefs of Staff failed in their second and third duty during the Vietnam era. Apparently they are failing now.
We are not as far apart regarding isolationism as you might think. I simply want the Constitution followed as well as basic strategic concepts.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have a duty to submit to civil authority-agreed. They also have a duty to bluntly tell the civil authority what will not work militarily. When the executive branch ignores that advice they have a third duty which thus far they have failed at- the duty to resign in protest of the executive branch's military policy and en masse take the issue to Congress and the people. The Joints Chiefs of Staff failed in their second and third duty during the Vietnam era. Apparently they are failing now.
Continuing Jeff Thomas' ideas, if the U.S. government suddenly collapsed tomorrow, and our land was invaded by foreign troops bent on controlling any segment of the population, what would we do? I can see many Americans, even if our armed forces are no longer "standing" being willing to make strikes against the agressor country(s). Is it really so improbable that other nations in the same basic situation might conduct attack against U.S. targets?
Why the hell are we there? What are we going to accomplish, versus what we have to lose? I would never condone the slaughter of innocents, but will we be able to stop it, on the grand scale? NO. Perhaps we make a "difference" for a few years. Do we then station US/UN/NATO troops in Kosovo forever? What gives us the right to put our troops there?
Why the hell are we there? What are we going to accomplish, versus what we have to lose? I would never condone the slaughter of innocents, but will we be able to stop it, on the grand scale? NO. Perhaps we make a "difference" for a few years. Do we then station US/UN/NATO troops in Kosovo forever? What gives us the right to put our troops there?
The fact is that the pouch has already been screwed. We have only two options. Admit that NATO and the US should never have gotten involved in this. (Yeah, right! Like that would ever happen.) or finish the job.
Did any of you ever really believe Clinton when he said "no ground troops"? I didn't. Now that three US soldiers have been captured, Clinton can claim outrage and send in the troops without opposition and pretend he was forced into it. This war is only just beginning. I just wish we had a plan.
Did any of you ever really believe Clinton when he said "no ground troops"? I didn't. Now that three US soldiers have been captured, Clinton can claim outrage and send in the troops without opposition and pretend he was forced into it. This war is only just beginning. I just wish we had a plan.
Grayfox...
You forgot Vietnam. Clinton can pull a Johnson and leave it in his successor's lap:
Clinton will dawdle and do it half-assed, ton's of people will die and his successor will finally face the music. Nixon's problem was by the time he inherited the mess, the country was sick of it all and so whatever he could have done never really had a chance. Clinton has sufficiently short time, strong apologists and an extremely talented spin machine so he won't be too damaged...unlike LBJ. I feel sorry for whoever succeeds Clinton..Dem or Republican...that poor person will take the brunt of Clinton's incompetence
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
You forgot Vietnam. Clinton can pull a Johnson and leave it in his successor's lap:
Clinton will dawdle and do it half-assed, ton's of people will die and his successor will finally face the music. Nixon's problem was by the time he inherited the mess, the country was sick of it all and so whatever he could have done never really had a chance. Clinton has sufficiently short time, strong apologists and an extremely talented spin machine so he won't be too damaged...unlike LBJ. I feel sorry for whoever succeeds Clinton..Dem or Republican...that poor person will take the brunt of Clinton's incompetence
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
DC
I know where this is going.
The Democrats KNOW that they can't possibly win the next Presidential election, so why not sandbag the Hell out of what ever poor slob (Republican) that gets the job? Let HIM be remembered as the idiot who had us in such a stupid war. Nobody remembers that it was JFK who got us into Viet Nam, will they remember it was Clinton who got us into Kosovo?
NOT!
------------------
Your mind is your primary weapon.
I know where this is going.
The Democrats KNOW that they can't possibly win the next Presidential election, so why not sandbag the Hell out of what ever poor slob (Republican) that gets the job? Let HIM be remembered as the idiot who had us in such a stupid war. Nobody remembers that it was JFK who got us into Viet Nam, will they remember it was Clinton who got us into Kosovo?
NOT!
------------------
Your mind is your primary weapon.
What the heck!? My 2 cents:
We have no business in Kosovo. It belongs to Serbia!
There is no genocide, and there has not been one in Kosoavo.
KLA was a terrorist orginization according to our State Department until a few months ago.
For what its worth, Serbs were persecuted in WW2 by Nazis as were Jews, other Slavs, etc.
Both Serbia and KLA are Marxist.
The KLA is financed by Albanian Mafia drug money.
Let them kill each other and the best killers win.
And the last rant for now, hopefully Serbia will kill many NATO soldiers excepting the Americans. They deserve it!
We have no business in Kosovo. It belongs to Serbia!
There is no genocide, and there has not been one in Kosoavo.
KLA was a terrorist orginization according to our State Department until a few months ago.
For what its worth, Serbs were persecuted in WW2 by Nazis as were Jews, other Slavs, etc.
Both Serbia and KLA are Marxist.
The KLA is financed by Albanian Mafia drug money.
Let them kill each other and the best killers win.
And the last rant for now, hopefully Serbia will kill many NATO soldiers excepting the Americans. They deserve it!