"The Germans to the Front!" | 62 comments (62 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 1)

I'd argue only the credible threat of a ground invasion achieved the goal of removing Serbian troops from Kosovo, while the goal of collapsing Milo's system and to control Serbia weren't fulfilled. As Upstate NY reminds us again and again, Milo consented to this much at Rambouillet, but then the UCK/KLA representatives insisted on NATO troops in Serbia proper.

That the bombing campaign didn't reach its target should be also clear if one reads up on the original plan. It was a three-tiered escalation in hope of the regime balking or the people rebelling against it: first bomb the military in Kosovo, then bob it all across Serbia, then bomb civilian installations (bridges, refineries etc.) too. But the third ladder was reached in the first two weeks, NATO ran out of designated targets, two months before the end of war. What followed was senseless, copntinuing a failed strategy out of military bureaucracy and political inertia, with Clinton et al hoping that Milo would get enough after some time, until finally waging to make the ground invasion threat while climbing down on demands.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 03:41:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

I don't seem to be able to dig up the source - was it Stratfor? or Foreign Policy? - but there's an opinion that the ground invasion was bound to split NATO. It gained credibility only because former prime minister of Russia went to Serbia and persuaded Milo that the threat was real.

In this way, Eltsin's Russia provided its last (but priceless, if you are looking from certain quarters) service to the West (again, suitably defined). The mighty irony is, of course, that the current groundswell of patriotism in Russia started from anti-American and anti-Western sentiments born during the Kosovo campaign.

And yes, "planes over Belgrade" was a figure of speech. They were part of the military operation which, among other goals, included bombing of civilian targets in Belgrade (yes, I know, propaganda TV tower and Chinese embassy which presumably collected intelligence and passed it on to the Serbs). Still, they were providing military services. There isn't even the weakest of excuses the Czech Republic used (CR sent a field hospital plus military police to Kuwait and later to Iraqi south; as a result, local politicians claimed that CR isn't part of the "coalition of the willing". The USA included it in their coalition list anyway).

by Sargon on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 04:08:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

Indeed I even remember articles from the time that the ground invasion threat was a successful smoke and mirrors, with NATO leaders not really daring to risk it.

They were part of the military operation which, among other goals, included bombing of civilian targets in Belgrade

I recognised that, that's why I put that information as a final (side)note. Being party in a military operation is why Germany was a subject in that lawsuit for a specific operation done by American planes.

yes, I know, propaganda TV tower and Chinese embassy which presumably collected intelligence and passed it on to the Serbs

Personally I don't see those points as suitable excuse.

weakest of excuses the Czech Republic used (CR sent a field hospital plus military police to Kuwait and later to Iraqi south; as a result, local politicians claimed that CR isn't part of the "coalition of the willing".

Hehehe. During the Kosovo War, the then right-wing government of Hungary lent support by opening airspace, but was in denial about it. One thing the then opposition made noise about was whether AWACS planes circulate in Hungarian airspace. It was denied. Having been an astronomer student at the time, astronomers working at a mountain observatory told me about having observed AWACS planes with a binocular at sunset.

(Then for reasons I detailed here, Bush and PM Orbán got at loggerheads, and the sides switched: the right-wing became anti-Bush and anti-NATO, and the Socialists marched into Iraq, sending truck drivers, until Parliament forced them to recall.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 04:43:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 1)

"Propaganda TV tower"?

I don't suppose you think it would be ok for the US to bomb Al Jazeera in Qatar?

BBC: Al-Jazeera seeks 'US bomb' talks (25 November 2005)

A senior al-Jazeera executive is in the UK to demand publication of a memo in which George Bush allegedly discusses bombing the TV station's HQ.
Wadah Khanfar, al-Jazeera's director general, is hoping to meet UK government officials to press its case.
A spokesman for al-Jazeera told the BBC News website that the channel only wanted the record set straight.

The Guardian: How smart was this bomb? (November 19, 2001)

Did the US mean to hit the Kabul offices of Al-Jazeera TV? Some journalists are convinced it was targeted for being on the 'wrong side'. Matt Wells reports
When World Service correspondent William Reeve dived under his desk in Kabul to avoid shrapnel from the US missile that had landed next door, some think it marked a turning point in war reporting.
The US had scored a direct hit on the offices of the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera, leading to speculation that the channel had been targeted deliberately because of its contacts with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. If true, it opens up a worrying development for news organisations covering wars and conflicts: now they could be targeted simply for reporting a side of the story that one party wants suppressed.

I don't care what the military say, a TV station is not a legitimate military target.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:58:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

I'm sure you realise Sargon was only sarcastic.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 06:04:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 1)

This is an important point, though, sarcasm or not. If TV stations can be bombed because they are propaganda outlets, what to make of "embedded journalists"?

The designers of airial bombing campaigns like to bomb anything and everything on the flimsiest excuses.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 06:07:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 1)

I was just reminding some of the arguments made at the time or later to justify the bombing, definitely not endorsing them. I'm too opposed to this bombing campaign in general to even start distinguishing between legitimate and not targets.

by Sargon on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 07:27:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

The wikipedia article on the war is somewhat confused, but it states that NATO troops were (also) a NATO demand, and that the Serbian counter-proposal was unacceptable even to the Russians.

The initial target list, I believe, was the substance of much political discussion, with the French and Italians initially blocking much of the targets that the US wanted to bomb, and gradually being convinced to allow for an expansion. NATO was made up of many countries with different positions, and the development of the war has to be seen as a matter of compromise internationally and also nationally (between Clinton and a Republican Congress).

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:09:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

NATO troops were (also) a NATO demand,

Yes, because Albright took up Thaci's demand. After the Serbian side said they agree and Thaci said they don't, Albright changed the text. This wasn't a single example of Albright (wittingly or unwittingly) playing for war during the negotiations, consaider also the issue of NATO or civilian peacekeeper leadership.

and that the Serbian counter-proposal was unacceptable even to the Russians.

Which was the end of it. Then as Wiki says, the Serbian Parliament accepted the non-military part of the second version of the Rambouillet proposal, and Wiki goes into details about what Serbia [rest-Yugoslavia] objected to.

The initial target list, I believe, was the substance of much political discussion, with the French and Italians initially blocking much of the targets that the US wanted to bomb

This was more complex. On one hand, the US held some target decisions for itself, which hapened to be the most sensitive: especially those involving stealth planes. On the other hand, they held intel information regarding why they picked targets for themselves. In the end, war by committee wasn't really by committee.

Then again, the "sexed-up dossier" and the "45 minutes claim" of that war didn't came from Britain but Germany. I mean the claims about a pre-planned "Operation Horseshoe" and about torture chambers and concentration camp in Pristina's stadium. So there was cooperation and also in the dark dealings.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:55:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 1)

The NATO countries had the experience of a failed ceasefire between the parties before, which was observed by OSCE monitors. The Serb's behaviour at the negotiating table also seems to have been unreliable, first coming up with a wildly unrealistic counterproposal set to anger NATO and then ratifying only a part of the accord when NATO said that it was indivisible.

All of this happened within the space of 6 days before the campaign started, as the wiki article seems to suggest. So the narrative that the Serbs compromised almost completely but their enemy was bent on war (mimicking the WWI narrative) doesn't hold up. Once you have an agreement on a civilian peacekeeping force, you have to negotiate about its size, makeup, rules of engagement, etcetera. So just proposing that you may wish to allow a civilian peacekeeping force isn't much of a step forward to the demand that 30,000 NATO troops are allowed in.

Whether or not there was an operation horseshoe is still uncertain. The actions of the Serbs during the war suggest that something similar existed. Of course, the existence of a plan doesn't necessarily mean that it will be carried out.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 01:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Germans to the Front!" (none / 0)

Another version with focus on the German politicians.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 06:03:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"The Germans to the Front!" | 62 comments (62 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

The problems with formal education

Speaking right: What an Taoiseach should say in Washington

Ambushing an Taoiseach

Net Zero Energy - March 2025

We do have the cards

Manipulating Irishness

Thomas Paine's Age of Reason

Recent Diaries

AMERICA! the Deadbeat Democracy

America Should Know Better

Crossroads, Ukraine Loses Either Way

Like a tsunami rolling ashore ...

Breaking: A Christian In the Kremlin

Going Down!

The Inside Job to Murder JFK [Update]

Ukraine Victory In Retreat

Ceasefire Negotiations Step by Step

17th of March

Ukraine Violated Human Rights in Odessa - 2014

Rutte In the Apprentice Theatre

Rearming Europe Peace Through More War

Keith Kellogg Is Out

Nordic States Join Baltics Again WWII Redux

Goodbye NATO/USA, Welcome Europe's E5

Zelensky and the Terror State Ukraine

EU Commissioner VDL In Full Panic Mode

The problems with formal education

The Battle for Kiev/Kyiv

Occasional Series