POW's in Kosovo

R

Rich Lucibella

Staff
My heart and prayers go out to the three brave US soldiers captured in Macedonia/Kosovo and their families back here.

That said, I am embarrassed by the grandiosity of official statements demonstarting outrage over their capture. These guys weren't in harm's way by accident....they were sent into the region. Whether they were captured in Kosovo or 1.5 miles into Macedonia seems, to me, a bit moot given our actions in the region. Whether they were part of the air attack or just on "routine maneuvers" seems a bit disingenuous.

If our leaders have grown so pompous as to assume that we can take military action against a sovereign nation and expect no reprisal, they are truly sick. If they assume that we are so dull as to believe them, they are sicker.

I know this post may be considered unpatriotic. However, I am not, *by any means*, defending the Serbs. However, it's time our leaders face the fact that we cannot attack other nations without cost. Battles must be chosen carefully.

We're in it now and I can see no other option than to do *whatever* it takes to win it quickly...not only for our three POW's but for the exiles that have been created by the current hostilities. (I am hard pressed to believe the "coincidence" theory that Milosevic was planning a major assault on the province and we got there in the nick of time.)

The problem is now enormous...and it is ours. A week ago we had choices in how we might help the Albanians in Kosovo. Today the choices are gone. One man had the power to send our guys in or pursue less dramatic measures.

May providence be kind to *all* our guys over there and history be honest to the memory of William Jefferson Clinton.
Rich
 
I hear that a lot, "We're in it now and I can see no other option than to do *whatever* it takes to win it..." Why do we have to win it? Why can't we just pull out (assuming there were no egos involved here)?

What is really in it for us to win?

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
 
Great question, John. And I'm not sure I have the answer. However, somewhere in the vicinity of 100,000 people have been forcibly exiled since we started this "action".

We have to face our responsibility to them. Personally, I think Clinton needs to open avenues for diplomatic solution while gearing up for a *real* ground fight. This means putting it in the hands of the professional military...no politcal quarterbacking.

If Milosevic knows we're no longer in it for a glamorous "TV War" and the pros have taken over from the clowns, I think diplomacy stands a chance. If not...there's still a debt to those forced exiles we helped to create.
Rich
 
Yes.

The s**t was bad enough before we started. We made it worse. there is a duty there. And while 'ego' is not a valid concern, appearance _is_. Allow me to elabourate.

If we give the impression that we as a nation will posture and make a half-assed attempt at waging war, we deliver a VERY clear message to every would-be aggressor world-wide:

"We don't mean business. If we object to your actions, you may continue to act as you wish. If we mobilize forces, we probably will not use them. And if we do use them, it will only be for a short while...as long as the polls look good. And as soon as they don't, we'll stop. So if you reeeeaaalllly want to do whatever it is we're whining about, just go ahead and do it. We won't do what it takes to stop you."

You don't think world leaders read the newspapers? You don't think they watch how we handle ourselves in every dust-up we are involved in? You don't think that our resolve makes a difference on the world stage? It sure as hell does.

Pulling out in the short-term is easy. Sure, this was a stupid thing to start with. Its gonna be a mess. But it makes it SO much more likely that someone else is gonna step to the plate. and another someone. and another. and another.

Think of a playground full of bullies. All you gotta do is kick some *** a few times and demonstrate a willingness to do it again...then act civil and proper and go about your business. You'll get left alone (walk softly, carry a big stick). By backing out of this one, which we started, we demonstrate not only an inability to kick ***, but an unwillingness to take a punch.

Ego? heck. I can suck that up. I'm concerned about practical matters.

Mike
 
Question:Who is calling the shots militarily? I have always questioned the wisdom of trying to fight a war in Yugoslavia.Genghis Khan thru Adolph Hitler learned that it is impossible and the idea that bombs alone will prevail is stupid.

But more to the point. WHO is responsible for putting a three man patrol next to a disputed border with no armor,artillery or air support?
A three-man patrol is sort of an oxymoron.It can not defend itself against one dug in defender.A three-man patrol is BAIT.
Somebody should have known better.
Dont you wish that Lee Marvin was still running the Big Red One???

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
I find myself seriously wondering just what is going on.

We, as in NATO, are bombing Yugoslavia with no intention of a ground assault? We currently have no plans to use ground forces. This comes from all the so called leaders.

Does this make sense? Not to me.

Now we find that the Serbs are now increasing thier efforts to ethnicly cleanse the Albanians from Kosovo. What the #@$%^ did they think would happen?

I'm not following the logic on this. Can someone help me? (Please read the sarcasm).

O.K., in order to stop the atrocities, troops will have to be deployed. That's a fact. We all know it. Now from what I understand, we don't have the forces in place to do this. Hell, it took us 6 months to put the forces in place to drive the Iraqis from Kuwait. The Yugos are no Iraqis. They want to fight. Now by the time we do get the forces in place, get backing from the European Community (which we will have to do), it will be over for the Albanians.

Wait! I get it now,the First Pervert in Charge had no real intentions of helping the ethnic Albanians. He had political goals in mind (what ever that may be).

Now its more human for the U.S. Three of our own have been paraded on T.V. Now we begin the slippery slide into a quagmire.

Lets hope Clinton & company realize what they have done.

------------------
Dan

Check me out at:
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm
 
Great posts, guys.

President Clinton ordering Milosovic to treat our POWs according to "the rules" ignores a basic problem. POW means Prisoner of War. We are not at war. We're just killing and risking being killed.

This is a great example of why we should drop the role of Globocop and reduce our entanglements with many other nations. Such action need not make us isolationists. Quite the contrary, it would free us up to "do business" more effectively and efficiently when and where our true national interests were at real risk.

We are not at war because we dare not declare war because it would put darned near the entire globe at war because we have treaties with danged near anyone who can say, in any language, "Gee! I'm sovreign!"

If we cut back our international treaties and obligations, we would still be free to get involved when required (or even asked!) - and we could do it "right" by declaring war! If it ain't worth fighting right, it ain't worth dying for. This half-assed pseudo-war business destroys our national will, our international credibility, our economy, and (worst of all, IMO) puts American lives at risk too often, with too little cause, and too little backup (militarily, politically, and economically).
------------------------
If some turkey accosts me verbally on the street, I have the choice of involvement or retreat. Usually I choose retreat because the trouble I would get into is not worth the personal gratification of whipping his butt or killing him.
If some turkey puts me, my family, or (in some cases) someone else in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. I will stop and/or neutralize the threat. Done deal.
Why can't we develop a similar national philosophy? If our national interests require action, then by God ACT! The President has the power to react swiftly and the Congress can declare war! Do it, get it over with, and get out!
If the problem is not worth war, then it's not worth dying for. Stay the hell out of it!
(Pant, pant, pant. The rant mode is exhausting....)
-------
Okay. So I haven't thought this through as far as I (perhaps) should have. But this piddlin' away our youth and resources is frustrating and, I believe, needless. Help me out with this, folks.



[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited April 02, 1999).]
 
The problem is this: "The Not at War" is only an internal "bookkeeping trick" domestically.
By the Geneva Convention and international rules, we ARE at war. I'm not speaking morally or from any aspect other than pure accepted and agreed upon conventions.
Therefore, capturing those Army scouts was perfectly legal...we are doing the exact same thing in bombing military targets. When at war, any of your oppositions' military assets are fair game.
Clinton can and does say anything he wants, but he can't redefine the rules outside of this country.



------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Jeez, DC, let me see if I’m learning properly....

- Only Congress can declare war. Except for the President. Then Congress
has to approve or disapprove quickly, except they don’t. So one single
person (the President) can declare war without declaring war and neither the
people nor the Congress will or can do anything about it.
- So, we’re at war but we refuse to admit it, saying that we’re just killing
people and destroying their land and their resources in order to stop those
people (whom we are killing) from killing other people (whom we’re trying to
protect) when they've been killing each other as much and as often as possible for a thousand years.
- The people we want to stop from killing (whom we are killing) now are
killing more of the other people (whom we’re trying to protect) faster and
faster, because of our actions.
- So, we continue our same actions, putting American lives and other scarce
resources at risk (in a manner which is proven to fail) in an attempt to
achieve a goal we have not clearly defined and possibly wouldn’t recognize if
we achieved it.
- All during this honorable escapade, our non-strategist
Commander-in-Chief (a proven liar, cheat, thief, adulterer, perjurer, etc.) is
explaining to his subjects (that’s us) that his consistently failing actions are
both honorable and effective because he is relying upon the knowledge and
expertise of military Generals (whom he promoted primarily because they previously
told him only what he wanted to hear), to win a non-declared war to achieve
a goal we haven’t identified, in a manner we see is an increasing failure, and
bankrupting us as a nation.

Seriously, am I on the right track here?

(It’s after noon. I want a beer!)

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited April 02, 1999).]
 
Clinton may not think we are at 'WAR' and our Congress has not declared War, but I can guarantee you that Milosovic is now at war with the U.S.

Richard

God protect our brave men who serve.
 
The owner of the range where I shoot every Saturday had a rather frightening take on this whole mess.

We know King William wants to disarm us. He's made absolutely no secret of the fact. What would be the most expeditious method to accomplish this? Send US troops door-to-door.

That won't happen. The troops would belay an illegal order like that, and prevent the "just following orders" drones from doing it as well.

So what do you do? Scatter your home troops over the globe... and leave them in backwaters like Somalia, Yugoslavia, South America, etc with no way to get back home.

Now you create (or take advantage of) a crisis, like, oh, Y2K. Doesn't matter if it's real or not, you just make the population restless. Use the "crisis" as an excuse to collect the guns.

But if your troops are overseas and the local fuzz are unable to do the job due to civilians calling bullsh*t, who do you call in?

The UN, using soldiers from, say, Somalia, Yugoslavia, and South America, who would be delighted at getting the chance to kill a few Ugly Americans.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but that's too damn plausible for me to discount. The Kosovo thing could just be misdirection.

------------------
"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)
 
Dennis...
In a nutshell...yep! The powers designated to the Pres. allow him a period of time (60 days I think) to use military force without Congressional permission.
But, like I said...that is only a policy of the US gov't, an internal operational matter.

This morning the Head of the CIA (Woolsey?) and some other military experienced folks said that by all internationally accepted conventions,rules and definition we are technically and truly at war...period! The difference is only domestically in the US and its a matter of formal declaration, fund appropriation and Presidential authority. Right now this is all being paid for by the current monies our involved services currently have in their budgets.

Look, if Mexico started shelling and air bombing Texas...everyone in the world would agree that Mexico declared war on us...regardless and despite anything Mexico said to the contrary. Now, if there was a Mexican recon force on or around the Manitoba/N.Dakota border and we bagged them...it is LEGAL! No violation of Geneva.

All I'm saying is that we started it and Clinton can not cry foul because the Army scouts were bagged.

I fear you are thinking that I believe the Army scouts deserve it...no, I am saying that it should have come as no surprise and by International law, Clinton can't bitch about it. Its like Clinton has to drive from D.C. to Arkansas and doesn't gas up first, then blames Ford or GM cuz he ran out of gas

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
DC-
Regarding our POW's, you've said it well...and you do not sound unpatriotic at all. Fact is fact...these guys were in harm's way in a war zone (ours) and got snatched. True patriotism requires that we look to those responsible; not use the other side as a scapegoat. It's pretty weak when the CIC excuses himself from responsibility by arguing that they were on a peaceful mission.

The Serbs were only doing what one would expect...the same thing our own guys would do if the tables were turned. I couldn't care less about their ulterior motives for taking these boys alive (lots harder than taking them dead). I'm just thankful that they *were* taken alive.

Rich
 
From my contacts at the White House and the Pentagon, I have been able to learn President Clinton's exit strategy from Kosovo, along with the current strategic thinking. At the risk of being prosecuted for revealing classified information, here they are:

Current White House plans:


Exit Strategy:
 
THat was Funny, Jim..!! :)


As for the three man patrol.. the word seems to be that they screwed up and either "got seperated" or purposely "Split up" from a larger recon patrol.

Recon, by necessity, means no air cover. AS for decicated fire support (arty/air).. the likely hood of a recon platoon having assets dedicated to it would be slim and none.. and it doesn't sound like any support was ever requested. They certainly never called in a location, (to the publics knowledge), so such support would've been unable to reach them.
Furthermore, three surrounded men calling in for arty would be suicide.

My first question is WHY did they seperate from the platoon??
 
Rob; There is much here that doesnt ring true.
I would think that this "patrol"had GPS and that its position was known.
As far as saying that they could have no support-if that is true they were hung out to dry and things are a lot worse than we know.
The reported "rumor" that they made the same route on a regular basis suggests inexperience and poor training.
I dont know what happened but it makes no sense.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
FWIW...
On NBC news this evening there were interviews with folks from the immediate Macedonian village who said that the scouts had crossed the border and were taken inside Kosovo

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Ooohh, DC! I don't know of anybody on TFL who would think the 3 POWs deserve even to be in (the former) Yugoslovia to begin with.

I'm just po'd at our government. They fight for supreme control over us and couldn't wipe their butts without dirtying their glasses.... Mere vulgarities fail me.

DC, when you posted that YOU would be prosecuted in CA for shooting a BG in your house at night, I was sorta upset a simple First Aid instructor didn't have an adequate employment position for a biochemist! :(
Maybe there's a place in Arizona or even Vermont? :)

I have neither the cause, nor the the nerve, to suggest you are unpatriotic or uncaring about our troops. Sorry if something I said implied something that dumb!

I have no, repeat NO, faith in our civilian OR military leadership! It is largely a septic tank where the biggest chunks rise to the top by being more PC than the truth-tellers who get pushed aside.

I'm sure there are some exceptions, but you gotta sell a lotta soul to get a bunch of stars or a Cabinet post.

Someone asked, "Where are the Patrick Henrys?" and my soul screamed in agreement and added, "and the Curt LeMays and other fine leaders, both military and civilian, of our past?"

Sorry, folks, I weathered all the conspiracy theorys, Y2K scenarios, etc., but this Kosovo thing has given me the "grumps"....
 
I know Dennis...

That "StrunzoIn Chief" has so befuddled language and facts that it has us all screwed up. It is so damned much work to sift through official words, comments and statements these days to get the bare modicum of truth and fact that is necessary to act on.

We are truly living George Orwell's "newspeak".

I can only echo Ed's tagline "Better days to be"


(luckily the obscenty filter doesn't recognize Sicilian :))
 
VFW Magazine for April, 1999, pg 8.
"VFW's policy on Kosovo is clear: 'VFW opposes the commitment of U.S. ground troops as part of the NATO force because it will result in another long-term obligation of U.S. manpower and resources -- again with no exit strategy.'"

But then what do combat veterans know about war compared to the great military minds of people like Saddam and Clinton?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top