Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
You are one...
of the slow ones aren't ya...
Tell ya what tinman, I am retracting this statement:
Me thinks that you are jusssssssssssst smart enough to know not to sh*t in your pants... and will simply ask how many times did you sh*t in your pants today.
Try reading the article...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/reconstructing_murtha_ii_pork.html
Then go find this:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22624402
Later dumbass...
Indiana Jones meets the Da Vinci Code
By Spengler
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak03.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/reconstructing_murtha_ii_pork.html
Enjoy the read tinman...
SL
P.S. Still waiting:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22624402
Look that one up...and you may find my comments on Stevens.
Later dumb@ss...
"The Pork King Keeps His Crown"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14mon3.html?_r=3&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
And Once Again...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22624402
SL
I don't have a "block" where I reside...
I have never been a fan of the concrete jungle...
Complain??? any particular reason why?
SL
"they are not friendly to progressive ideas"
Rofl...f**k the "progressive" and his/her f**king ideas...
"I've lived in NC. It's true they have a church on every block.......along with a liquor store."
You are full of ch*t...
SL
And still I wait...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22624402
d@mnnn tinman...how many more f**king months do you need?
SL
"I want to discuss our bet, please."
Here?????
Why hell yea...
traveling men love to bet...
SL
Touche'...
Maybe we should make a wager...Gary can hold the clothes.
I win either way! :)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SL
That depends...
on how long the "really, really well" ch*t last :)))))
SL
Well hey there sweetie...
did you find my dirty laundry...need a couple of buttons sewn back on too.
hugs :))))
SL
Someone tell the owner...
I dropped by.
SL
You are...
quickly starting to bore me...
Take a peek...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,516214,00.html
But hey...you like clinton, and dislike bush (am I correct)...as for me, I can't stand neither one of the m****f**kers. Nor do I like the father or the wife.
SL
"Nazis are a stretch, but the propaganda campaign is stronger than it ever was during the Nazi era..."
Try/attempt these things:
1) Read the f**king article.
2) Go play with a search engine: "Bissama Allah, oria alard Hitler" and "Amin Al Husseini/Amin al-Husayni"
3) Go play in a busy street.
SL
Nazis and Islamists
By Paul Belien
November 7, 2007
During the Second World War, the Nazis worked on plans to build the "Amerikabomber," an airplane specially devised to fly suicide missions into Manhattan's skyscrapers.
Albert Speer, the Nazi minister for armaments, recalled in his diary: "It was almost as if [Hitler] was in a delirium when he described to us how New York would go up in flames. He imagined how the skyscrapers would turn into huge blazing torches. How they would crumble while the reflection of the flames would light the skyline against the dark sky." Hitler hated Manhattan. It was, he said, "the center of world Jewry." Less than 60 years later, Hitler's plans were executed by Muslim immigrants living in Germany. At the 2003 trial of the network around Mohamed Atta (the pilot who flew into the World Trade Center), Shahid Nickels, a German convert to Islam and a friend of Atta's, said that the Islamists had targeted Manhattan because it is "the center of world Jewry, and the world of finance and commerce controlled by it."
The parallels between Nazism and Islamism are overwhelming. Yet the subject is a taboo. When last March the German historian Matthias Kuentzel, author of "Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11," was to give a lecture at the University of Leeds (Britain), the university authorities cancelled the lecture after threats from Muslim students.
There is a war going on between the Jihadists and the West. We are losing the battle because, as so often in man's history, our political leaders think that they are still fighting the previous war. Europeans who warn against the danger of Islamism are considered — and sometimes even prosecuted — as xenophobes, racists, even neo-Nazis.
The European left, in league with the Islamists, is constantly reminding the Europeans of Hitler and the Nazis, accusing Europe's identity, the very core of its being, of being intrinsically evil. Hence, attempts to rob Europe of its identity are seen as "good," even when those eager to eradicate this identity leave no doubt that they will eradicate the Jews first.
Unfortunately, some American "conservatives" are also blind. Last year, Ralph Peters wrote in the New York Post that Europe's identity is stained by "ineradicable viciousness." He said that the Europeans are "world-champion haters," who have "perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing." Mr. Peters' message is similar to that of Ayyub Axel Koehler. Last June, Mr. Koehler, a convert to Islam and the chairman of the German Council of Muslims, told German church leaders that Europe should be ashamed of the "trail of blood" that it had left throughout the world down the centuries.
To some, defending Europe's identity is seen as a characteristic of neo-Nazism, while they fail to realize that Hitler's real successors are the Jihadists. To many Europeans it now seems that the only way in which Europe can atone for the crimes of the Holocaust is by looking on passively while others prepare a new holocaust.
And so, ironically, Hitler will get his way and win the war after all. Contrary to what is generally acknowledged, the Fuehrer did not care about Europe's or even Germany's identity. Those European nationalists who today take their inspiration from Charles Martel, the Germanic leader who beat the Arabs in 732 at the Battle of Tours, cannot be neo-Nazis for the simple reason that Hitler explicitly wished Martel had lost the battle.
"Had Charles Martel not been victorious," Hitler told his inner crowd in August 1942, "then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world." Hitler told Mr. Speer that Islam is "perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament." If the Muslims had won in Tours, the whole of Europe would have become Muslim in the 8th century; and "the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of [Europe]. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire." Today, Germany, like the rest of Western Europe, is rapidly turning Islamic. In addition to the many Muslim immigrants, 4,000 Germans convert to Islam each year. As always the converts are among the most radical. Last September, Fritz Gelowicz and Daniel Schneider, two young German converts to Islam, were arrested as they were preparing to bomb Frankfurt International Airport. Hitler would have been proud of them. And he would have loathed the so-called "racists" who worry about their country losing its national identity.
Paul Belien is editor of the Brussels Journal and an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071107/EDITORIAL/111070001/1013/editorial
You seem to be confusing me...
with some of the dumbf**ks you apparently converse with on a regular basis.
The article is not about microwaves, mp3's, stereo's or computers (wait...there was an issue of a super computer). But hey, if I wish for some high tech nuclear/missile/military technology...then I will certainly drop bill and hillary's name (I understand that a campaign contribution will be in order).
So here is the deal sorta...for future reference, of course...The clitnons and the bushes (Ironic no?) are one and the same to myself...and a helllllllllllllllll of alot other people.
We simply find it hard to believe that dumbmasses such as yourself can not see it.
SL
P.S. I still enjoy your sarcasm.
20 years thus far
of two families running things from the White House...and some wish to make that at least 24.
I can only laugh at those so f**king stupid.
Keep up the work on R Paul.
SL
"No doubt they'll be "drilling down" to all-time lows in integrity and quality of journalism"
ROFL...they are talking about a clinton. Illegal chit tends to follow them around, so it is not too d@mn hard to find a few "lows in integrity".
SL
The Chinese Re-Connection
By INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, October 26, 2007 4:20 PM PT
National Security: Bill Clinton was the best president the People's Republic of China ever had. His wife may be even better. Beijing, hungry for more technology transfers, is betting on it.
IBD Series: To China With Love: The Clinton Legacy
It's no coincidence that Sen. Hillary Clinton's autobiography, "Living History," is the most popular foreign political memoir in Chinese history. The state-owned publisher of the Chinese translation of her book has printed hundreds of thousands of copies (after censoring passing references to dissident Harry Wu) and stocked them in bookstore windows from Beijing to Shanghai.
It's also no coincidence that Chinese bagmen are lining up immigrants in Chinatowns from New York to San Francisco to donate cash to Hillary's campaign. Many have never voted. Some aren't citizens and couldn't vote if they wanted to. Most are dishwashers, waiters and garment workers who don't even have the means to give the thousands they're giving. And an alarming number say they've been pressured by shady Chinese "businessmen" to help fill Hillary's campaign war chest.
Command fundraisers are breaking out all over the Chinese community. It's plain that Sen. Clinton is China's candidate. It's time to ask why that is. What is the attraction? What does Beijing want? What has she promised?
Is Hillary, as some suspect, a Manchurian candidate loyal to foreign and unseen donors rather than American voters? Can she be trusted with U.S. security?
With polls showing Clinton bounding ahead of the Democratic field, while nosing out even top GOP hopefuls for the White House, voters must take these questions seriously. We plan to drill down on them in a series of editorials.
It's instructive to revisit the special relationship the Chinese had with the last Clinton administration, especially in view of how the former president plans to act as an "international emissary" for his wife.
Bill Clinton called it a "strategic partnership." He argued that cozying up to — or as he called it, "engaging" — the communist Chinese was in America's best interest. But while Clinton was engaging them, an engagement that included inviting them into our defense labs and dismantling export controls, Beijing:
• Managed to steal secrets to every nuclear warhead deployed in the U.S. arsenal.
• Deployed for the first time an entire force of CSS-4 ICBMs that target the continental U.S., from L.A. to New York and everything in between.
• Declared the U.S. enemy No. 1 in its military writings.
• Bought Russian destroyers armed with missiles designed to kill U.S. carriers.
• Built up its missile batteries across the Taiwan Strait.
• Infiltrated the CIA and FBI with spies.
The Chinese espionage that occurred on Clinton's watch was unprecedented, and analysts still don't know how deep Chinese moles penetrated our security complex.
The FBI warned President Clinton that the People's Republic of China was running a massive intelligence operation against the U.S. government, which included a plan to influence the 1996 election.
Clinton looked the other way. In fact, there's evidence he facilitated it by throttling the prosecution of Chinese spy cases and covering up probes into Chinese funny money that poured into his campaign.
As soon as Clinton took office, he implemented a policy of "denuclearization." That included ending nuclear testing, kicking open the defense labs to Chinese and other foreign scientists, and declassifying hundreds of documents related to our nuclear program.
Clinton also deregulated export of sensitive dual-use technology such as supercomputers and rocket guidance systems. And Beijing gleefully took advantage of the dovish changes, sharpening the reliability of the missiles it has aimed at the U.S. and Taiwan.
Clinton's open-door "engagement policy" amounted to rank appeasement of a communist state with hegemonic military ambitions. Will Hillary carry on the tradition? Will she, too, hold a high-tech fire sale for the Chinese? One thing is for sure, Beijing and its bagmen are betting on it — big time.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278291149224647
Why does Turkey hate America?
By Spengler
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ23Ak01.html
(edited) "I haven't figured out why we're building a $500M+ embassy in Iraq unless we plan on staying for a hell of a long time."
The picture below is Camp Bondsteel...another place we/US has dug its heels into.
Below is part of an article written by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya. It is quite long, so many here will pass it by.
"None of these events are coincidental; they are all carefully planned steps of a “military roadmap.” It was the subsequent bases that were established in the Balkans after the 1999 NATO war on Yugoslavia that allowed the logistical groundwork for an invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 to take place. These are different battles of the same war."
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:HFw497F_s4gJ:www.globalresearch.ca/index.php%3Fcontext%3Dva%26a....
"I'm doing fine if it would only frigging rain."
I am near Goose Creek, SC right now, we get an occasional hit of rain, but not a good soaker.
Take care,
SL
"So, now tell me that when "Clinton lied, no one died."
Funny how it becomes quiet when the killing of the Serbs is brought up.
SL
Here's an Idea...
Cut out all the d@mnnn pork...and there would no reason to raise taxes.
Hope this finds you well Bull.
SL
Deleted...
"When you take a country to war for a LIE, IMO it's a criminal act"
Speaking of such...
The New Rome & The New Religious Wars
"No nation is fit to sit in judgment on any other nation."
— Woodrow Wilson, 1915
"I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people."
— Edmund Burke, 1775
CONFLICT IS NORMALLY INITIATED as a response to the demands of national interests. National interests are usually defined as those things necessary for the survival, stability or prosperity of the state. The evolution of civilization has meant that, before a decision is taken to launch a conflict, there is today, in most cases, the availability of a greater foundation of factual intelligence, and more pragmatic — or at least more broadly-based — analysis of national requirements, conducted by professionals working within evolved frameworks to ensure dispassionate objectivity. The ramifications of the use of certain weapons technologies have always played a role in the decisionmaking process. Today, given the unparalleled destructive scope of weapons, it is rational to assume that considerations of the environmental, political, economic and social damage of a conflict would be weighed heavily before conflict was engaged.
THE ENTIRE PROCESS of the consideration of conflict as a means to resolve differences between civilized societies, then, should have a weight of logic, an understanding of history, and a grasp of the ramifications for future generations. Once the process concludes, and the decision to engage in conflict is taken, that decision and the rationale for it are believed to be sound, or else why would the decision have been taken?
In other words, belief in the correctness of the decision is based on factual reporting and analysis, weighed in the matrix of national interest.
But what if the belief came first, and the supposed basis for this belief was never subjected to the rigorous analytical and logical process which is today regarded as fundamental before the destructive power of modern weapons is employed?
In such a case, we would have a war prosecuted as a war of belief, which, if not based on empirical analysis derived from sound intelligence and historical understanding, coupled with political experience, becomes, literally, just another "religious war".
Robert Eisenman, the famous scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls, wrote in his recent book, James, The Brother of Jesus: "One must be able to divorce one's faith, on the one hand, from one's critical faculties and historical judgment on the other . . . Otherwise, one will be unable to make any real progress on the road to discovering the historical reality behind the period before us." His words, in discussing the events around the period of the origins of Christianity, are equally apt today.
We are today at a strange confluence of history, when some 2,000 years after the Jewish War (66-73 CE) against Rome, we see the emergence of a new power acting in a similar fashion to the Rome of that period. Then, and earlier, the Jews rebelled against Rome and against other overlords, to protect their religious beliefs, in a process which ultimately led to the Christianization of the Roman Empire. But the Romans also fought out of belief in themselves and against any who dared to challenge. The suppression and the responses were very much based upon belief systems rather than merely on the matter of national or imperial interests. On many occasions, it is true, Rome fought to protect its interests and to project its power. But when Rome was globally unchallenged, as it was during its occupation of Jerusalem and the old Jewish kingdoms, it used power for vengeance, and often on the personal whims of emperors such as Nero (54-68 CE) or his successor, Vespasian.
The reality was, ultimately, that Rome could ill-afford the luxury of ill-conceived and gratuitous mis-use of its might. There were consequences for all its actions. Indeed, in the wars today between the factions of Christianity — and in many ways the current Balkan war is (separate from the involvement of extreme radical Islamists) a fight between Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism, a fact totally missed in nominally secular Western Europe and the US — linger as a direct result of the political warfare which characterized the Roman attempts to dominate and seduce the various Jewish sects of 2,000 years ago.
Religious wars were once again the norm in medieval Europe, and, for that matter, much of the rest of the world during the Middle Ages. Today, it is easy to look back on such conflicts as being cruel and wasteful, based as much on superstition, ignorance and jingoism as on a productive pursuit of national objectives. As history progressed through the creation of the modern nation-state with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and then the Industrial Revolution, wars became more a matter of national interests. These national interests — and indeed the framework of state-to-state alliances — were often built around geographical or social-ideological parameters.
The ideological wars of the 20th Century, while they may appear as "belief system wars", were nonetheless wars of competing national interests. The ideologies may superficially be compared with religions, but where they differed from religious belief is that the ideologies were grounded in human methods of societal management, not divine ones. As such, the ideological wars represented, to a greater degree than the religious wars, conflicts between lifestyles and economic systems. [This is also true to a degree of the religious wars, but ideological wars fought over which system had the best claim on the future management of societies; religious wars tended to focus on which form of status quo was better.] Of course, all societies have retained the need to value their ideologies as being "morally superior" in the prosecution of war (ie: religiously correct in some sense, whether formal religions were used or not).
Even so, society evolved — or is supposedly evolving — beyond the age of the purely ideological war, into a global framework in which national interests are defined by a more lassaiz faire approach, under which sovereign identities were supposedly respected, and under which a variety of approaches to lifestyles, economic systems and the like were tolerated. The theme in the late 20th Century, when it became clear that the Western version of civilization had "won" the Cold War, was supposedly one of tolerance for the systems, views, religions and customs of others. Indeed, it appeared as though civilization had indeed progressed well beyond the need to even think in terms of religion as a basis for conflict. Those who still considered religious belief as the basis for waging war — such as the radical Islamists (not to be confused with the mainstream Muslim states) — came to be regarded as backward and barbaric.
And yet we are now witnessing a return to what might be called "the religious war" era. The West, which ostensibly pioneered the progress to more "rational" behavior, now appears to be spearheading an approach to war and strategic affairs which is based solely around unsubstantiated beliefs, and around the voodoo of pseudospeciation. Pseudospeciation is that phenomenon by which individuals and groups protect their sense of identity by viewing other groups as "less than human", and therefore less worthy of consideration, more able to be disregarded and destroyed.
As Nobel Prize-winning author Elias Canetti pointed out, society as a whole feels the need to witness, and therefore participate in, the execution of outcasts (such as murderers). By reinforcing who are the outcasts, the circle of society feels superior, comforted.
But pseudospeciation is not a basis of rational, civilized management of society, nor today a valid system for the prosecution of wars. It is a form of rabid exclusionism which is identical to racism, not founded on any rational evidence. It is a blood lust, fueled by jingoism and war dances. Today, the war dances are the arcade-game visions of laser-guided destruction shown on television and the ritualized posturing of leaders to create the televised images of power.
That is the basis on which the President of the United States, William Clinton, using the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as his vehicle, began a major military and political assault on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in late March 1999. However — and this cannot be stressed too strongly — the evidence shows that this began very much as the action of President Clinton (rather than the US Government or NATO), and was taken against the advice of professional intelligence and defense analysts.
Once such a decision is taken — to commit the country to war — there is generally, in the US, a closing of ranks as politicians and generals, intelligence analysts and the media, all fall in behind the Commander-in-Chief.
It is virtual political suicide for any US politician to appear to oppose the basis for the deployment of troops into combat lest the country appear divided and the forces seem to be unsupported at home. President Clinton knows this, and has repeatedly used the gambit of the deployment of US forces "into harm's way" in order to quell opposition at home, particularly if the "opposition" appears to have a major problem to present to him.
[Similarly, the US media, for a variety of complex reasons, generally moves in the same fashion, in a bloc, which would lead outsiders to believe that a uniform censorship had been imposed.]
Despite this, at the time of writing (April 9-25, 1999), domestic US opposition to the Clinton decision was mounting. What was significant was that at the same time, the Clinton Administration spearheaded the resumption of military strikes against Iraq's President Saddam Hussein. This had all the hallmarks of a situation whereby, if Clinton was forced to scale back operations against Yugoslavia — and certain negative information started to return to the front pages of US newspapers — there would be another military campaign to re-capture the media attention and continue to offer some kind of protection for the President from criticism while "our boys are at risk".
There were several major threats to Clinton domestically during this period. One, which came to a head on April 12, 1999, was connected with the civil law suit brought against the President by Paula Jones, who alleged that the President had sexually accosted her. A ruling on April 12 by Judge Susan Webber Wright stated that Pres. Clinton had deliberately lied in his legal responses on the case, and damages were awarded against him. The matter was also referred to the Arkansas Bar to rule on whether Clinton, a lawyer by profession, would be disbarred from the legal profession.
The other, and far more serious matter, concerned the impending revelation of the details of dealings between the intelligence services of the People's Republic of China and the Clinton-Gore White House. The 700-page Cox Report was, as President Clinton ordered the ramping up of military actions against Yugoslavia, awaiting declassification and release. The results of this would have been devastating to Mr Clinton and to the hopes of election (to the Presidency) of the current Vice-President, Al Gore.
Given the previous use by Pres. Clinton of force abroad to distract from the legal processes at home, it would be naive in the extreme to believe that this, his most serious problem yet (involving, as it does, matters which could be construed as treasonable), would not have been sufficient cause for him to begin a war abroad.
It is equally logical that the US defense establishment would not wish to face this fact. There is little it can do to resist the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, even when the C-in-C's judgment is open to question. Better to buy the lie and head off to battle.
The Clinton Administration has, as this journal has noted in the past, always had "enemies" ready to be raised at a moment's notice, to be used to distract attention. In the matter of Kosovo, given the personal animosity to the Serbs held by Secretary of State Madeline Albright and US Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, it was not difficult to keep a case against Yugoslavia ready for elevation to the spotlight. It is equally interesting that the far more strategically-important conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, still underway, has failed to receive the same attention from Mr Clinton.
Equally, the horrific and very easily-documented slaughter of innocents by the present Rwandan Government of Vice-President Paul Kagame goes unnoticed in the Clinton White House. The sporadic separatist conflict in southern Mexico receives no attention at all. The Sudanese civil war is referred to in passing; the Sierra Leone civil war — a human tragedy of enormous scale — goes without comment. And there are others.
No, the Kosovo situation was the easy target; the one already primed in the media to offer the most opportunity for Mr Clinton's purposes. It was a natural.
In a meeting with this writer on April 19, 1999, in Belgrade, Yugoslav Foreign Minister Zivadin Jovanovic posed the rhetorical question: "Can it be possible for a country, such as the United States, to be a democracy at home, and to be anti-democratic abroad?"
To seek historical precedents we need only look at Imperial Rome and Britain during its imperial phase.
SOME OF THE ORIGINS OF THE KOSOVO CONFLICT
IN THE 11-12 1992 edition of this journal, I wrote: "Incoming President Clinton will be tempted to take fast, populist decisions on the Balkans crisis, and these could be fatal for any chances for peace there." The same article noted: "Bill Clinton campaigned for the US Presidency without touching on strategic issues. Now he must learn to lead the US through the most dangerous global morass for perhaps 70 years."
That was 6 1/2 years ago, and few outside Yugoslavia were aware even where Kosovo was. In the February-March 1994 edition of this journal, some five years ago, staff writer T.W. (Bill) Carr wrote:
"Other areas, perhaps with even greater potential for ethnic conflict [than northern Serbia], are Kosovo and the Sanjak region of Yugoslavia. Here the problem is an explosive mixture of religion and nationalism with roots reaching back in remote history and the Tito era. Adjacent to Kosovo is Muslim Albania from whence came 95 percent of the present day population of Kosovo."
"Tito's parents were from Croatia and Slovenia, and during his Administration, Tito maintained power in Yugoslavia, not just by holding back economic development within Serbia, but by taking positive action to counter the strength of the ethnic Serbs; a strength which is derived from the size and geographical spread of the Serbrian population."
"He moved Serbs out of their religious heartland, Kosovo, the place where they had fought their most historic battle against the Ottoman Turks. At the same time, Tito encouraged Albanian Muslims to move into the area vacated as a means of soliciting favor from Middle East Muslim countries. When subsequent discriminatory action and violence drove Serb families out of Kosovo he did nothing to prevent the exodus. Today [February-March 1994], a situation prevails where US officials say that if Serbia 'invades' Kosovo then the West must attack Yugoslavia using the full might of NATO. It seems that these [US] officials do not realize that Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia. How can a country attack itself?"
"In effect, what they really mean is that self-determination is paramount; Principle Eight overrules Principle Three of the Helsinki Accords. This is the direct opposite of the situation in the Krajina, where the same [US] officials say Croatia's Hitler/Tito-generated borders are paramount; Principle Three overrules Principle Eight. Is it any wonder that the Serbs feel aggrieved and are bewildered by Western logic, or rather the lack of it?"
"Just like the Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Albanian Muslims draw encouragement from Western statements and threats against Yugoslavia over Kosovo."
Carr went on to say: "Trouble will only erupt [in Kosovo] as a result of provocative action by the Muslim population within Kosovo, or from outside interference. In such circumstances, Yugoslavia has a choice of action. It can withdraw from its own territory, or it can take forceful action to suppress civil unrest, knowing full well that the latter will result in heightened media attention on a massive scale, followed by political demands for the UN Security Council to take military action against Yugoslavia."
Significantly, in 1995, a year after this report by Bill Carr, US officials, including US Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, and retired senior US military officers (acting in contravention to rules forbidding their work as mercenaries for a foreign power), worked directly with the Croatian Government to support the Croatian "ethnic cleansing" of the Krajina region — which had been Serb occupied for some 500 years — forcing some 250,000 ethnic Serbs from their homes and lands. The media was not present. The dead — and there were many of them — were not counted. The quarter-million-plus refugees were forgotten, and remain forgotten although they still have not been given international support.
Before the partition of Yugoslavia, ethnic Serbs owned more than 60 percent of the land of what is now Bosnia-Herzegovina. Under the ultimate settlement, in which they were unwilling participants, their landholding shrank dramatically. They were, in large part, thrown from their lands, and many remain as refugees. There has been no outcry for them.
This writer covered parts of the war during the early 1990s, and saw only one side of the conflict covered by the general media. The damage to the Serbs; the reduction of their lands, and the flow of their people into homelessness was never covered.
In 1929, Serbs constituted 61 percent of the Kosovo population. They remained a majority until World War II, during which many were killed or driven from their homes by the German occupiers and/or their neo-nazi allies among the Kosovo and Bosnian Muslims [who provided enough volunteers for an SS division to fight, also, on the Soviet front].
After 1945, the Tito (communist) Government made it illegal for Serb refugees to return to their homes in Kosovo. Over the next five decades, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants poured across the badly-policed border with Albania. These were economic refugees, fleeing the poor management of the Stalinist Albanian Government into a more liberal economic system which, although bad by Western European standards, was — and still is — vastly better than in Albania.
There is a general impression internationally that the region of Kosovo and Metohija — usually referred to internationally just as Kosovo — is populated solely (or predominantly) by people of Albanian origin. This is misleading. There are 20 separate ethnic communities living in the area: or were until the NATO bombings began on March 24, 1999. There are, in fact, 26 separate national communities living in Yugoslavia, making it the most multi-national, multi-religious state in the Balkans.
There are some 2,500 Serbian Orthodox monasteries and churches in Kosovo and Metohija, of which about 1,200 were built between the Eighth and 19th Centuries and which are classified as international treasures. Kosovo is the home of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the official residence of the Orthodox Patriarch.
As well, it is worth noting that literally every place name, river name, and so on in Kosovo and Metohija is of Serbian linguistic origin; there are no "Albanian" names there, given the history of the region. Kosovo itself means "a field of black birds" [Kos is a black bird]. The name Metohija means "the land of the monastery".
These facts give some idea of the spiritual identity of the region with Serbian beliefs, as well as the most important fact that Kosovo was the birthplace of the Serbian nation, the site of its defeat at the hands of the Ottoman Turks and its eventual freedom from Turkish domination.
And while Serbs within the Yugoslav Federation have no problem with granting a high degree — even "an unparalleled degree", as one senior Yugoslav leader told this writer — of autonomy to the Albanian-origin community in Kosovo, it is inconceivable that any Yugoslav leader would contemplate the kind of independence for Kosovo which was planned by the Rambouillet "agreement" which was unilaterally thrust on the Yugoslavs in 1999. It was absolutely known by the Clinton Administration that the wording of this ultimatum, which had been published two days before it was delivered to the Yugoslav delegation in Rambouillet in a KLA journal, was expressly designed to be rejected by Belgrade, thus providing the political excuse for the commencement of US-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. The fact that all of the real parties to the Kosovo dispute had already, on March 15, 1999, signed an accord which would have given the requested autonomy was disregarded because the US supported only the KLA solution, knowing that it had "its" air force — that is, the air forces of NATO — to help enforce its will.
There was considerable under-estimation by the KLA and by the White House, however, of the determination of the Yugoslavs to resist such pressure.
WHO AND WHAT IS THE KLA?
The Ushtria Clirimtare e Kosove (UCK) or Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) has several "parents" — including the Iranian and Bosnia-Herzegovina governments — and several important "midwives-cum-doting aunts", including the United States, Croatian and Turkish governments and a wide range of individuals. The KLA would not be the significant factor it is today in the Kosovo crisis, however, had it not been for the blessing of the United States Clinton Administration, and for the direct and indirect support given to it by the Clinton Administration.
It now seems clear that the US Clinton Administration and the German Government have been actively supporting the KLA since 1992 with weapons, training, intelligence and, most importantly, significant political encouragement. The final turning point in KLA fortunes came when US special envoys Richard Holbrooke and Peter Galbraith posed in 1998 for pictures with the KLA leadership, thereby cementing the endorsement. Ironically, the KLA has its origins in the stalinist/leninist/maoist Albanian Party of Labor of the late Albanian leader Enver Hoxha. Today, although clearly of a maoist bent — its leader, Adem Demaci, uses the maoist clenched fist salute constantly — it also uses the appeals of nationalism and religion to win converts among the Kosovo Albanians.
Gradually, following the end of the stalinist era in Albania in 1992, the KLA, by now mainly operating out of Germany and among the expatriate Albanian Kosovos, as well as inside Albania, began drifting more toward becoming a purely criminal organization, almost totally preoccupied with narcotics trafficking and extortion to sustain itself. Not much has changed since then, apart from the addition to the KLA's persona of political-military support from the Iranian Government and then from the US and German governments.
In a landmark report — Italy Becomes Iran's New Base for Terrorist Operations — written for Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy in late 1997, and published in the April-May 1998 edition, Senior Editor Yossef Bodansky noted:
"By late 1997, the Tehran-sponsored training and preparations for the Liberation Army of Kosovo (UCK — Ushtria Clirimtare e Kosoves — in Albanian; OVK in Serbian), as well as the transfer of weapons and experts via Albania, were being increased. Significantly, Tehran's primary objective in Kosovo has evolved from merely assisting a Muslim minority in distress to furthering the consideration of the Islamic strategic access along the Sarejevo-to-Tirane line. And not only by expanding and escalating subversive and Islamist-political presence can this objective be attained."
"In the Fall of 1997, the uppermost leadership in Tehran ordered the IRGC [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps; the Pasdaran] High Command to launch a major program for shipping large quantities of weapons and other military supplies to the Albanian clandestine organizations in Kosovo."
". . . By early December 1997, Iranian intelligence had already delivered the first shipments of hand grenades, machineguns, assault rifles, night vision equipment, and communications gear from stockpiles in Albania to Kosovo. . . . the Iranians began sending promising Albanian and UCK commanders for advanced training in [Iranian-controlled] al-Quds forces and IRGC camps in Iran. Mean-while, weapons shipments continue. Thus Tehran is well on its way to establishing a bridgehead in Kosovo."
The report detailed the KLA’s requirements for men and equipment, and outlined the KLA’s proposed theaters of operations.
The report further went on to say that the KLA's radical wing was considering the assassination of the leader of the moderate Democratic League of Kosovo (DLK), Dr Ibrahim Rugova, and Fehmi Agani, the DLK deputy chairman, and blaming Belgrade for the killings. Dr Rugova, however, escaped assassination and remained in Yugoslavia to help negotiate a peaceful solution to the Kosovo crisis. Even after the NATO bombings began on March 24, 1999, he remained in Yugoslavia to help negotiate an end to the crisis, a move which has led KLA sources to "leak" to the media the fact that Dr Rugova was, in fact, "a virtual prisoner" of the Yugoslav Government, something which Dr Rugova's visibility in the Yugoslav media should have dispelled.
Dr Rugova's position, however, is not one which the US Clinton Administration wishes to hear. The US committed itself to the KLA, and therefore to trying to break off Kosovo — with its 20 ethnic groups, not just the Kosovo Albanians — into a separate state. So the thought that Dr Rugova was "a virtual prisoner" remained in the media interpretation, blessed by the Clinton White House. Either because of political commitment, or to simplify the public's perceptions, the Clinton Administration has promoted the view that the KLA represents those Kosovo residents of Albanian origin. Clearly, the KLA does not. The KLA has for some years based its revenue collection on extorting money from expatriate Kosovos under the threat of assassination of their relatives at home, and on drug trafficking and violence aimed largely at the Kosovo people themselves.
The KLA is the principal proponent of the "greater Albania" philosophy, under which the organization first hopes to achieve an independent Kosovo under its control and then to use that base to take over Albania itself, given that Albania is currently in a virtual state of anarchy. Before that stage is reached, however, the swelling Albanian minority in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYRM) would be targeted for either complete takeover or for the "Albanian part" to be targeted for "independence". These are objectives which the KLA does not bother to hide. However, the German and US administrations have chosen to ignore these objectives, and the ongoing criminal activities of the organization.
As noted, the KLA, supported since 1992 by the US and Iran — who are, in fact, strategic opponents, given the Iranian clerical administration's structural incompatibility with the West — received much support and training from the radical Muslim leadership of Bosnia-Herzegovina, under President Alija Izetbegovic. It may be a matter of some significance that during 1992, before William Clinton became US President, he signed, as Governor of the US State of Arkansas, an "initiative" with the "Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina". In response, the Bosnians "pronounce[d] the month of April 1992 as 'The Month of Bosnia-Berzegovina and Arkansas'". The Official Gazette of the Bosnians, in February 1992, published the following item, dated February 15, 1992: "On acceptance of the initiative of the governor of the state of Arkansas, on establishment of close cooperation with the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina: The initiative of the governor of the state of Arkansas on establishment of close cooperation between the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the field of culture, education, economy, science and other forms of cooperation is hereby accepted."
The implications for the KLA are apparent in this closeness.
Ironically, the KLA's head of elite forces, Muhammed al-Zawahiri, is the brother of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the military commander for Saudi-born terrorist leader, Osama bin Laden. The US Clinton Administration has, of course, declared bin Laden "public enemy number one" for his alleged involvement in the bombing of the two US embassies in East Africa in 1998. And Ayman al-Zawahiri has been implicated in the assassination attempt in 1995 against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Little wonder that numerous US policy analysts, even those who are hostile to Yugoslavia as a basic stance, are extremely uncomfortable with the Clinton Administration's close ties with the KLA.
There is no doubt that the involvement of the two brothers al-Zawahiri in the two movements is not coincidental. Ben Works, director of the Strategic Research Institute of the US, noted: "There's no doubt that bin Laden's people have been in Kosovo helping to arm, equip and train the KLA. . . . The [US] Administration's policy in Kosovo is to help bin Laden. It almost seems as if the Clinton Administration's policy is to guarantee more terrorism."
Noted strategic analyst and columnist, former US Army Colonel Harry Summers, said on August 12, 1998, that in Kosovo, the US found itself "championing the very Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups who are our mortal enemies elsewhere".
The KLA's criminal activities are well-known in Europe, but in nearby Italy, they are of greatest concern, because increased war will make its first impact on the European Union's prosperity by affecting Italy. In the first two weeks of January 1999, alone, there were nine murders carried out in Milan by KLA assets. The line between the KLA and the other purely criminal Albanian mafia elements is now indistinguishable.
And yet this is the group favored by the Clinton Administration (and as a result by the Blair Administration in the UK) over the moderate Kosovo Albanian leaders who have always sought to create a situation in which Yugoslavs of Albanian origin could live, pray and work in harmony alongside the other 25 Yugoslav nationalities. Indeed, Clinton and Blair deliberately overturned a workable agreement signed by all Yugoslav parties in Kosovo so that the KLA-written "Rambouillet Accords" could be served up as an ultimatum to the Yugoslav Government.
Agim Gashi, 35, an ethnic Albanian from the Kosovo capital, Pristina, was, until his recent arrest, the major drug dealer in Milan. In a March 15, 1999, article (ie: before the bombing began) by writer William Norman Grigg, an Italian police telephone intercept was cited in which Gashi urged his Turkish heroin suppliers to continue shipments during the holy Muslim period of Ramadan. Gashi said that the continuation of the shipments was for the sake of an important cause: "To submerge Christian infidels in drugs." But at least part of the billions which Gashi made from the narcotics trade went to buy a variety of weapons for the KLA. Most of the weapons were from pirated Russian stocks, ironically. Today, Russia is trying to reinforce Yugoslavia in the fight against the KLA and NATO.
Grigg's article continued:
The developments leading up to the Administration's announcement of a US mission to Kosovo were projected with uncanny prescience in an August 12, 1998 analysis by the US Senate Republican Policy Committee (RPC). The report noted that 'planning for a US-led NATO intervention in Kosovo is now largely in place . . . The only missing element seems to be an event "with suitably vivid media coverage" that would make the intervention politically salable, in the same way that a dithering Administration finally decided on intervention in Bosnia in 1995 after a series of "Serb mortar attacks" took the lives of dozens of civilians: attacks which, upon closer examination, may in fact have been the work of the Muslim regime in Sarajevo, the main beneficiary of the intervention.'
"That the Administration is waiting for a similar trigger in Kosovo is increasingly obvious," observed the RPC report. Last July [1998], the Administration had already described the "trigger" event it was seeking as a pretext for intervention. The August 4 [1998] Washington Post quoted "a senior US Defense Department official" who told reporters on July 15 that "we're not anywhere near making a decision for any kind of armed intervention in Kosovo right now". The Post observed that the official "listed only one thing that might trigger a policy change: 'I think if some levels of atrocities were reached that would be intolerable, that would probably be a trigger.'
The "trigger" was pulled on January 16, 1999, when William Walker, the [US] Administration official assigned to Kosovo with a team of observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), announced that a "massacre" of more than 40 ethnic Albanian peasants by Serbian security personnel had taken place in the village of Racak. The January 20 New York Times observed that the Racak "massacre" followed "a well-established pattern: Albanian guerillas in the Kosovo Liberation Army kill a Serb policeman or two. Serb forces retaliate by flattening a village. This time they took the lives of more than 40 ethnic Albanians, including many elderly and one child."
However, as the French newspaper Le Figaro reported on the same day, there was ample reason to believe that Walker's assessment of the situation was made in "undue haste". Walker, the US official who headed a 700-man OSCE "verification" team monitoring a ceasefire in Kosovo, accused Serbian police of conducting a massacre "in cold blood". According to Le Figaro's account, Serb policemen, after notifying both the media and OSCE officials, conducted a raid on a KLA stronghold. After several hours of combat, Serbian police announced that they had killed 10 KLA personnel and seized a large cache of weapons. Journalists observed several OSCE officials talking with ethnic Albanian villagers in an attempt to determine the casualty count.
"The scene of Albanian corpses in civilian clothes lined up in a ditch which would shock the whole world was not discovered until the next morning, around 9am," reported the French newspaper. "At that time, the village was once again taken over by armed [KLA] soldiers who led the foreign visitors, as soon as they arrived, toward the supposed massacre site. Around noon, William Walker in person arrived and expressed his indignation." All of the Albanian witnesses interviewed by the media and OSCE observers on January 16 related the same version of events: namely, that Serbian police had forced their way into homes, separated the women from the men, and dragged the men to the hilltops to be unceremoniously executed.
The chief difficulty with this account, according to Le Figaro, is that television footage taken during the January 15 battle in Racak "radically contradict[s] that version. It was in fact an empty village that the police entered in the morning . . . The shooting was intense, as they were fired on from [KLA] trenches dug into the hillside. The fighting intensified sharply on the hilltops above the village." Rather than a pitiless attack on helpless villagers, the unedited film depicts a firefight between police and encircled KLA guerillas, with the latter group getting by far the worst of the engagement. Further complicating things for the "official" account is the fact that "journalists found only very few cartridges around the ditch where the massacre supposedly took place".
"What really happened?" asks Le Figaro. "During the night, could the [KLA] have gathered the bodies, in fact killed by Serb bullets, to set up a scene of cold-blooded massacre?" Similar skepticism was expressed by Le Monde, a publication whose editorial slant is decidedly antagonistic to the Serbian side in any Balkan conflict.
"Isn't the Racak massacre just too perfect?" wondered Le Monde correspondent Christophe Chatelot in a January 21 dispatch from Kosovo. Eyewitness accounts collected by Chatelot contradicted the now official version of the "massacre", describing instead a pitched battle between police and well-entrenched KLA fighters in a nearly abandoned village. "How could the Serb police have gathered a group of men and led them calmly toward the execution site while they were constantly under fire from [KLA] fighters?" wrote Chatelot. "How could the ditch located on the edge of Racak [where the massacre victims were later found] have escaped notice by local inhabitants familiar with the surroundings who were present before nightfall? Or by the observers who were present for over two hours in this tiny village? Why so few cartridges around the corpses, so little blood in the hollow road where 23 people are supposed to have been shot at close range with several bullets in the head? Rather, weren't the bodies of the Albanians killed in combat by the Serb police gathered into the ditch to create a horror scene which was sure to have an appalling effect on public opinion?"
"THE BIG LIE" AT WORK
MOST PEOPLE cling to their belief in fiction — that is to say things which may be suppositions or direct lies, or myths, or things for which realistic substantiation has not been provided — far more passionately than they cling to their belief in "truth"; that is, fact-based or evidentially-based realities. Partly this is because belief in things which have been accepted as "fact" can be modified by the production of newer facts, without affecting the ego, or sense of self-worth of the individual. Beliefs which are based on faith alone, and which accord with some sense of correctness within the individual's own logic system (but which are not necessarily rooted in facts or evidence), are cleaved close to the breast. That is because, in order to have faith and to believe based merely on a command to believe a given thing involves committing one's sense of identity. To doubt one's beliefs casts doubt on one's sense of identity, and identity is the key to self-esteem and survival.
Once a target audience believes in something, based, say, on the statement of a credible leader or leaders, backed by trusted institutions, it is difficult to dislodge that belief even though massive and overwhelming evidence is produced. And when a leader, supported by various institutions, creates belief based on a direct lie in a confused situation, where refutative evidence is difficult to produce (or cannot be heard in the clutter of blood-lust and zeal), then it can reasonably be expected that the truth may never prevail. Or it may emerge so late as to be of little value. In some instances, it takes the passage of considerable time, perhaps generations, before societies can accept that certain historically-held beliefs were false, and based solely on lies.
In order to move societies in the direction leaders wish them to go, it is necessary to appeal to belief systems. In normal times, the entreaties of leaders are subject to a process of debate and logical evaluation by target audiences and by key opinion-shapers. In times of urgency, disaster, chaos or national emergency, the normal pattern of critical evaluation is lost as the need to confront a perceived common threat dominates the entire society. Clearly, under such circumstances, leaders (and situations) often cannot tolerate the delay, division and hesitancy caused by a process of debate. It is easier to coalesce the minds of the leader's target audiences by crystallizing the argument in such a way that debate is not even considered. If a lie moves the audience in the desired fashion, then a lie is often used.
Often, it is true that "the bigger the lie, the more easier to sway the audience"; a lie so overwhelming in its audacity that it is inconceivable to believe that it could be undertaken. This is often justified by the claim that the end justifies the means.
But what if the leader's desired ends are themselves open to question? Or what if, by using lies to achieve ends, injustices are committed or societies irrevocably changed for the worse? And if the leader is from a democratically-based system of government, is he ethically able to use such "big lie" tactics and still claim to be the legitimate leader of an electorally-based state?
Most experienced policy professionals would say that it is sometimes necessary to be "economical with the truth" in order to preserve security, morale or the process of speedy decisionmaking. But that is very different from basing an entire strategic posture on a bedrock of lies, promoted in such a way as to create a destructive set of beliefs in the minds of one's own citizens or foreign target audiences.
What we are seeing now in the so-called Kosovo Crisis is the use of "the big lie" technique on such a massive and repeated scale, primarily by the Clinton White House, that it has laid the foundation for the destruction of a stable global environment. That is in the medium-term. In the short-term, it is leading rapidly into a war with no meaningful goals, no prospect for an easy resolution, and with costs which will severely damage the economies not only of Yugoslavia, but also Western Europe (indeed all NATO countries) and Eastern Europe for some time to come.
For what?
To protect the ethnic Albanian population which had taken over Kosovo? That is, for humanitarian reasons? If humanity cries, do not the refugees of Sierra Leone (who have been more harshly hit and in greater numbers in the currently ongoing war) have a claim to this humanitarian relief? Or the people suffering in the Sudanese civil war? Or the tens of thousands of dead and wounded and displaced in an equally senseless war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, still underway? Or the Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims forced out of their homes since 1991? As many as a million of them were forced to flee into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, where they have been accommodated without assistance (in any real sense compared with the support for the Albanians) from the international community for up to eight years already.
What about the millions of Afghan refugees forced into Pakistan?
What is it about the Kosovo Albanians — who fled for economic reasons from Albania to the protection and prosperity of Yugoslavia in increasing numbers since 1929, but who do not call themselves "Yugoslavs" — which demands greater charity and humanity than the millions of dead, displaced and brutalized Rwandese?
We must assume that there is more to this selectivity than merely the horror of "that brutal dictator" (as Milosevic was called by US Secretary of State Madeline Albright). [Ms Albright conveniently forgot that Mr Milosevic, although in many ways unpopular before the bombing, was voted into office in elections which would have passed muster in the US, and he received a higher percentage of this democratic vote than President William Clinton received in the United States. He was helped at that time by the fact that the opposition was not sufficiently united; today, however, as members of the former opposition say: "There is no opposition; we are united to resist aggression."]
The biggest lie has been the one unspoken: the reality that the entire effort of invading Yugoslavia had nothing directly to do with Yugoslavia or the Kosovo problem. The truth is that any credible and sustainable (ie: medium-duration) catastrophe which would divert the media and political attention away from the serious charges facing the Clinton White House would have been acceptable. Of course, only a military conflict would fit the bill: only under circumstances of "war" can the President credibly expect that divisive domestic issues be put aside.
But if this conflict has been sparked by several big lies, as well as playing on the massive ignorance of Western societies as to the history of the region, it has been sustained by an ongoing litany of lies on the part of the Clinton and Blair administrations and by NATO. This is not a comment made idly; this writer has been covering international security affairs for almost four decades and has never seen such a scale and audacity of lying as is now the case. Even the Soviets, the masters of disinformation, rarely seemed to match this current atmosphere of "say anything to get through the day".
One case in point was the bombing by NATO aircraft of four Kosovo refugee convoys in one day during the week of April 11-17, 1999. The attention focused around one of the convoys — the one which Yugoslav authorities first reached, and filmed, and to which they brought journalists later — which at first NATO denied attacking. NATO authorities at first said that it could have been attacked by Yugoslav Super Galeb fighters, flying low. Gradually, however, the NATO spokesmen had to retreat, a step at a time, from that position, although always maintaining that "some Yugoslav aircraft" could have been in the area and added to the carnage. NATO released video and audio tapes which they later admitted were, in fact, not connected with the incident at all. Then they released stories about how difficult it was to identify targets from 15,000 feet. Another minor piece of deception, as we shall see.
This writer has, however, heard the voice traffic between the initial strike aircraft and his EC-130 Hercules AWACS. This is what happened:
The four convoys were made of Kosovos who were returning to their homes in the Dakovica area of Western Kosovo-Metohija, not far from the Albanian border. They were moving away from the Albanian border, not attempting to "flee" from the "ethnic cleansing". Given that the Clinton Administration has made it clear that Kosovos cannot be allowed to re-settle their lands without NATO supervision, this phase of the bombing war was not going as planned. The continuation of the NATO strategy depended upon the continuing horror and tragedy of the refugees fleeing into Albania and Macedonia.
A USAF F-16 fighter was deployed to the area of the convoy in question. The following is the transcript of the mission radio traffic:
Pilot: "Good day, I am in position 80. No movement underneath. Please information on red MiGs [jargon for Yugoslav combat aircraft]."
AWACS: "Hello Charlie Bravo. Mother here. Patrol northwest direction Prizren-Dakovica. There are no red MiGs in the air."
Pilot: "OK, I am going to 3,000ft."
AWACS: "Mother to Charlie Bravo. You get reinforcements in about 10 minutes. There will be something interesting south of Dakovica."
Pilot: "Charlie Bravo to Mother. I am coming out of the clouds, still nothing in sight."
AWACS: "Mother to Charlie Bravo. Continue to the north, course 280."
Pilot: "Charlie Bravo to Mother. I am keeping 3,000 feet. Under me columns of cars, some kind of tractors. What is it? Requesting instructions."
AWACS: "Mother to Charlie Bravo. Do you see tanks? Repeat, where are the tanks?"
Pilot: "Charlie Bravo to Mother. I see tractors. I suppose the Reds did not camouflage tanks as tractors."
AWACS: "Mother to Charlie Bravo. What kind of strange convoy is this? What, civilians? Damn, this is all the Serb's doing. Destroy the target."
Pilot: "Charlie Bravo to Mother. What should I destroy? Tractors? Ordinary cars? Repeat, I do not see any tanks. Request additional instructions."
AWACS: "Mother to Charlie Bravo. This is a military target, a completely legitimate military target. Destroy the target. Repeat, destroy the target."
Pilot: "Charlie Bravo to Mother. OK, copy, Launching."
NATO spokesmen, including the politically ambitious NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, said: "We may never know what really happened." Clearly, that is not true.
It is usual and necessary, in a combat situation, for military personnel to believe in their mission; that they are "the good guys" and the others are "the bad guys". During the Vietnam War, US service personnel had a variety of slang names for their North Vietnamese and Viet Cong opponents, other than just NVA (North Vietnamese Army) and VC. It was part of the "them and us" syndrome. Note the slang used in the air war: "red MiGs". The implication is that the opponents, or defenders, are "communists" — the dreaded bogey of the Cold War — flying MiGs, the ubiquitous Soviet-era fighter synonymous with "the enemy", just as Messerschmitts were synonymous with "nazis".
Clearly, the Yugoslav Air Force does have some MiGs, but it also has locally-made aircraft. And since 1948, Yugoslavia certainly was not a communist state of the type of, say, East Germany, Hungary, Poland or Czechoslovakia, all now members of NATO (with their own MiGs still in service).
The jargon is symptomatic of pseudospeciation, the mind-set of racism which groups automatically adopt to sustain their belief systems. Even a former US Ambassador to NATO, speaking on BBC TV in the UK on April 22, 1999, said that NATO must dispose of the last pocket of communism in Europe before European progress could continue. If that is so, then Albania — the new ally of NATO — should worry: it still sustains, where it has any government at all, a communist structure by any other name. So, too, does Croatia, which prides itself on being philosophically in the camp of Western Europe. Croatia, despite the fact that it has had less external constraint than Yugoslavia, has achieved far less in the way of privatization of commerce and industry. Croatia is a State-dominated economy, with dramatically less freedom of speech, movement and religion, than is Yugoslavia.
And yet the impression of Yugoslavia as a "communist bastion" is being perpetuated in the West. The Yugoslav populace is baffled by the West's view of it, and as reluctant as it is to embrace the friendship of Russia, it feels that it has little option: the Orthodox peoples must stay together in the face of anti-Orthodox hatred. This complements the belief among many in Yugoslavia that the Vatican is heavily-involved in the attempt to isolate them.
Such a belief is not unreasonable given the role of the Catholic Church in Croatia during World War II. But then, the Croatian Catholic church is barely recognizable as the same faith practiced elsewhere. But when German Catholics spearheaded the funding and military aid for Croatia before and after the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1991-92, the old fears of the Serbs returned. They had lost 1.7-million of their people to Croatian "ethnic cleansing" (the phrase is a Croatian one) in the Croatian Ustase concentration camps and summary killings of 1941-45. The Serbs, along with the Jews they tried to protect, were among the proportionately greatest victims of World War II.
The fact that Clinton insisted on keeping up the bombing campaign through Orthodox Easter inevitably made Serbs draw parallels with the nazis in World War II. It was on April 6, 1941, Palm Sunday, that the Luftwaffe bombed Belgrade when the Yugoslavs hesitated to surrender. Some 5,000 people died, virtually all civilians.
For a comprehensive understanding of this era it is necessary to read, among other things, The Web of Disinformation: Churchill's Yugoslav Blunder, by the late David Martin [Published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich in 1991]. Read it, and weep.
The endless trail of disinformation, or just plain lies, continues at all levels during the current conflict. In 1992, when this writer was visiting Yugoslavia on one of the many assignments into the conflict zone, he was told repeatedly by Serbs: "We know that the truth will come out and that people will remember that we have always been the allies of the West, and that we would never do the things the media is saying about us." History is written by the winners, however; and victory is as much the product of the pen as of the sword.
The US, hoping to obtain a bargaining tool to win the release of the three US soldiers held captive as Prisoners of War by the Yugoslavs, sent a mission inside Yugoslavia in April 1999 to capture a Yugoslav officer. This they did, snatching a 20-year-old lieutenant. But the US Government, unwilling to admit to having ground forces inside Yugoslavia, said that the KLA had captured the officer and turned him over to the US. A small lie, but one which points to the fact that the Clinton Administration is reluctant to admit the forward posture of its ground forces.
State Department spokesman James Rubin, who is married to CNN television news reporter Christiane Amanpour, constantly talks of "compelling evidence" of "Serb atrocities", but in fact never actually details the "compelling evidence". In some case, circumstantial evidence is shown, and then later the "conclusions" from this evidence are portrayed as coming from incontrovertible proof.
The "compelling evidence" of vast atrocities is not evident on the ground, other than the tragedy of the scattering of refugees which began when the bombing of their places of work and their homes began. Paul Watson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Canadian journalist with The Los Angeles Times, is one of the few reporters actively covering events on the ground on Kosovo, where he was already in place when the bombing began on March 24. In an interview with Canadian Broadcasting radio on April 13, 1999, he said: "It is very hard to hide an anarchic wholesale slaughter of people. There is no evidence that such a thing happened in Pristina [the Kosovo capital]."
"I have spoken personally to people who have been ordered to leave their homes by police in black. I've also spoken to people who are simply terrified."
He added: "I see a pretty clear pattern of refugees leaving an area after there were severe air strikes."
Not just in Kosovo, but all over Yugoslavia. This writer has also seen refugees on the move, their red tractors pulling carts with families aboard, leaving places such as Pancevo after the bombings; trying to find a place in the country away from the war.
Watson noted: "I do not think that NATO member countries can, with a straight face, sit back and say they don't share some of the blame for the wholesale depopulation of the country. If NATO had not bombed, I would be surprised if this sort of forced exodus on this enormous scale would be taking place."
NATO spokesman and US State Department spokesman James Rubin picked up, on March 29, on reports that three key Kosovo Albanian leaders, one of whom was involved in the negotiations over Kosovo at Rambouillet had been "executed" by Serb forces. Rubin said that the US would "avenge" their deaths. However, the three — Fehmi Agani, who was at Rambouillet; Baton Haxhiu, editor of Koha Ditore, a Kosovo Albanian newspaper; and Dr Ibrahim Rugova, the only elected leader of the Kosovo Albanians — were all very much alive. Dr Rugova, in particular, was seen on television on many occasions following the allegation, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees reported on the safety of the others.
Neither Rubin nor NATO amended their story; Rubin, even after the news of the three mens' continued wellbeing, still insisted on "avenging their deaths". Given the earlier (1997) plan by the KLA to kill the moderate Rugova, it would seem that the lives of these three Kosovo Albanian leaders is in danger again, from the KLA. Certainly, the US has backed KLA-leaked reports that Dr Rugova is "a virtual prisoner" of the Yugoslav Government, something he effectively seems (as at this writing in late April 1999) to disavow every time he is seen in public in Belgrade.
Perhaps one of the biggest "tactical lies" being perpetuated as the bombing campaign continues was the failure by the US and NATO to announce their own battlefield casualties. If the US is to be believed, it has lost only one aircraft in the war (to April 25, 1999). The reality is that far more aircraft had already been lost by NATO to that point. Aircrews and ground troops had been killed and captured, according to reliable intelligence reaching this journal. The specific details are discussed below, but, if verified, this means that the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff lied under oath in his testimony in April before the US Congress.
The US argued, at Nuremberg after World War II, that "just following orders" was insufficient defense against a charge of war crimes. But are the victors subject to the same laws?
The disingenuous manipulation of evidence by NATO spokesmen was evident in the release of totally unrelated air traffic tapes in the matter of the attacks on Kosovo civilian convoys (cited above). It has also been evident on other occasions, such as when, on April 18, 1999, Clinton Administration and NATO officials released reconnaissance photographs which they cited as "evidence" of "mass graves", which, as The New York Times of April 19 said, were "raising fears of atrocities" by the Serbs. This "evidence" showed an area near Izbica, in Kosovo. The earlier photograph showed no markings on a field; the second showed rows of marks: "the mass graves".
However, even to someone not skilled in photo-interpretation there were flaws in the comparison. The earlier photograph, which the releasers implied was taken just before the second, was clearly taken quite some time before the second. Indeed, there are differences in buildings which could not have occurred overnight. As well, the symmetrical rows of "graves" in the later photograph clearly would not be graves, given that "mass graves" imply large holes with many bodies, not neat, cemetary-like plots. But when it is discovered that the marks are something else, the story is likely to be an item of only passing interest, submerged in the mounting complexity of a war already taken to a new level.
But the "compelling evidence" of "mass graves" will have done its job for Clinton.
THE NEED FOR "VICTORY"
CONFLICT RESOLUTION usually comes only in one of two forms: a victory in which "peace" is imposed upon a beaten enemy; and a mutual victory in which each side feels that honor and national objectives have been satisfied. The Serbs were overrun in Kosovo, their most holy territory, by the Turks at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389; they did not, however, submit to the Turkish overlords, eventually fighting for, and gaining, their independence again in the early 19th Century in one of the first major wars against feudalism.
So today's Serbs are unlikely to accept the alienation of their lands; certainly any forced division of Serbian territory would result in years — even centuries — of conflict in one form or another.
So "victory" for the two contestants in the current Balkan war is seen as, on the one hand, the perpetuation of national sovereignty, and on the other hand as a final end to communism in Europe. The NATO states also see "justice" for the Kosovo Albanians as part of the equation, even though the NATO 1999 military approach has been largely responsible for the destruction of Kosovo's economic and social viability.
Given that a cessation of military activity and embargoes by NATO against Yugoslavia would restore that country's sense of sovereignty, and that some kind of symbolism that Yugoslavia embraces Western market economics could be found, there is very little distance to travel from the present impasse to a sense of victory on both sides. It is true, however, that Western leaders (particularly Clinton and Blair) have indicated that only the departure from office of President Milosevic would mark the transformation from the ancien regime to the "new world order".
The problem with that requirement for NATO's "victory" is that the Yugoslav people, previously in varying degrees hostile to their President, have now (because of NATO) rallied around him, and would reject the imposition of a NATO edict demanding the President's removal from office.
On April 22, 1999, a Russian Government delegation led by former Prime Minister Viktor S. Chernomyrdin held meetings with the Yugoslav President. The New York Times the next day reported that the Yugoslav Government "appeared to give very little ground", but in fact he agreed to "an international presence [in Kosovo] under United Nations auspices", a significant point, if the US was not fundamentally suspicious of the UN.
Underlying the entire conflict resolution process is the fact that the US Clinton Administration does not really have any idea what should constitute victory. On the one hand, it has said that victory means re-settlement of the Kosovo Albanians under an autonomous, if not independent, state. On the other, it has said that victory could not be achieved if Yugoslav President Milosevic remained in office.
Basically, however, Clinton has consistently moved the goalposts, so that any response given by the Milosevic Government would be unacceptable. Clinton needs the war to continue for his own reasons, and certainly he needed to get through the NATO 50th anniversary Summit in Washington DC on April 23 looking "statesmanlike". He certainly did not wish the Chinese intelligence/funding scandal, discussed in the Cox Report, to diminish his stature at a time when he is trying to create an historic "legacy".
World War III would be a significant legacy!
Columnist Charles Krauthammer, writing in The Washington Post on March 26, 1999, confirmed that the Clinton objectives going into the bombing lacked coherence. Discussing Clinton's speech on March 24, Krauthammer said: "For incoherence and simple-mindedness, for disorganization and sheer intellectual laziness, it is unmatched in recent American history." He added: "It is not forgivable to send American men and women into battle in the name of a cause one can barely elucidate." The columnist sharply criticized Clinton's attempts to equate Milosevic with Hitler. "But if Serbia's Milosevic is Hitler, how come this Hitler has been our peace partner in the Dayton Accords these past three years now? Never mind. When in doubt, play the Hitler card. No matter how ridiculous the analogy. After all, Serbia has no ambitions to rule a continent, nor the power to do so."
Significantly, Clinton has always chosen small, relatively weak opponents when he has needed "bad guys" to take the media attention away from his problems. As we noted in this journal earlier, he has no intention of allowing anyone on the enemies list to make peace. He has always needed to be able to resurrect a villain on command. Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Libya's Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi and Yugoslavia's Milosevic have been his targets of choice.
So it is probably fair to say that Clinton has no wish to end this conflict as long as he has need of distraction from the intelligence/funding scandal as outlined in the Cox Report, now awaiting release. So the Yugoslavs can do little to appease Clinton (and therefore NATO). The answer is that Clinton is seeking a prolonging of the war at as little cost — and as much noise — as possible. If he is forced out of the Kosovo crisis, he must immediately resurrect another crisis. The US has already resumed bombing of Iraq, "just in case".
That is the Clinton rationale. Not all of his Administration, nor his allies, have the same rationale. There is a geopolitical perspective in Washington which says that US dominance in the Balkans, via Albania, is essential if the US is to retain any strategic influence in a Europe which could soon be dominated by a homogeneous political entity — and economic rival — in the form of the European Union.
There are other, more human considerations, too. People close to Clinton say that he has made it clear that his "legacy", or the memory of his presidency, will not be one in which his impeachment over the ramifications of a tawdry sex scandal dominate history. Some of his associates (their own sense of history also involved) say that Clinton would rather be remembered as the US president who took the US and NATO into a major war — with all that this entails — than be either a forgotten president, or one discredited by tawdriness and illegality.
What, then, constitutes "victory" for Clinton? It is unlikely that the US congress would suppress (or be able to suppress) the Cox Report with its apparently damning evidence of White House culpability in the campaign-funds-for-strategic-favors scandal.
Just how damning is the evidence against Clinton with regard to the passing of ballistic missile and nuclear weapons technologies to the People's Republic of China? Enough for the Clinton Administration to use every lever of authority at its disposal to stop the declassification of the Cox Report and other inter-agency reports on the matter. The White House has called in every agency it can think of, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (FIAB) to put roadblocks in the way of declassification of the 700-page Cox Report.
The Washington Times of April 26, 1999, in an editorial entitled And the spying goes on, confirmed this. "For months now, the Administration has been battling the Rep. Cox and his committee to keep these details secret." The Cox Report was due to be released by the end of March 1999 (the subject of the report had become publicly known in April 1996), but because of the Administration's pressures this was postponed until the end of April 1999, with the later understanding that the ongoing conflict would enable the Clinton White House to further obfuscate and delay release.
"Given the national security consequences of the revelations as well as the president's propensity to avoid any responsibility, it is now more imperative than ever that the Cox Report be promptly declassified," The Washington Times editorial said.
This is the scandal which eclipses the Monica Lewinsky matter which led to Clinton's impeachment by Congress.
So, if a "legacy other than scandal" is the goal of President Clinton, then he must attempt to continue the distractions, which means the fighting. There is the prospect of switching the combat to a less-difficult "threat", such as Iraq's Saddam Hussein, and there is evidence that this option has been well-considered.
It may well be, failing all else, that the US Congress will be required to determine what constitutes "victory". All agree, at least nominally, that NATO cannot survive as a viable strategic instrument if it fails to achieve its "objectives" in the war against Yugoslavia. There were still a few in government in NATO states who, in late April 1999, clung to the belief that air power alone could force compliance by the Milosevic Government to the NATO terms. But these were only, literally, the naive, with no understanding of military history. No major strategic campaign has been won by air power alone.
There are others who believe that the insertion of ground forces into Yugoslavia, or even just the Kosovo-Metohija region, is an unfortunate necessity to achieve compliance. But they, too, are naive: a Yugoslav abandonment of the most sacred heartland of the Serb people will not happen. Germany inserted 700,000 troops into Yugoslavia in 1941-45, and failed to successfully control the country. NATO is not prepared to do even that much.
Similarly, because the Serbian people see that they have been so maligned by the peoples (US, UK and France) whom they once suffered to defend in two World Wars, and accused of so many atrocities that they know have been committed against them as a people in the past, they will not surrender up even President Milosevic, as much as some of them may have disliked him in the past.
Furthermore, Yugoslavia's military capabilities have hardly been touched, despite the bombing campaign (or perhaps because the bombing has been directed largely at civilian economic targets). So a military "victory" would not be possible without a massive, and unrealistically large, cost to NATO in economic, manpower and time terms.
What will be necessary is for NATO (or rather Clinton, because NATO will follow) to "re-define victory", if victory is to be achieved. The concern in even the anti-Clinton circles of NATO is that without a victory, NATO's future credibility and viability will be lost. This is in great part true, and it is an additional reason why many senior members of the US and NATO military forces are quietly extremely angry at Clinton.
So a US Congressional re-definition of "victory" must consider the long-term ramifications for NATO. It seems likely that the Yugoslavs, themselves extremely anxious for a cessation of hostilities and a resolution to the Kosovo crisis, will be only too happy to assist in this.
The visit to Belgrade on April 18-21, 1999, by US Congressman Jim Saxton (Republican, New Jersey), under the auspices of the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA), the publisher of this journal, was therefore an important breakthrough in attempting to wrest control of the strategic agenda from the Clinton march toward Armageddon. Not surprisingly, Congr. Saxton returned to Washington to face outright hostility from the Clinton Administration and skepticism from the media and some other members of Congress, all well steeped in the propaganda version of the conflict.
At first, a curious media besieged Rep. Saxton, requesting that he speak on CNN's Larry King Live, and other prime time network television news shows. But, following a 45-minute telephone harangue of the Congressman by Secretary of State Albright, State Department pressure ensured that the networks withdrew their invitations for the Congressman to speak. Few in the Washington media want to jeopardize their access to the White House or State Department.
But despite this, the chance to grasp at peace attracted many, and the option — begun by the Saxton initiative — was opened. Debate emerged into the open.
REALITIES ON THE GROUND
IT GOES WITHOUT saying that if the international reporting on the Kosovo conflict was correct then certain "facts on the ground" would be very different from what they have really proven to be. It had been stated that NATO forces had, by mid-April 1999, destroyed the Yugoslav Armed Forces' capability to wage war. The problem began with the original premise of the US Clinton Administration that the Yugoslav Government of Slobodan Milosevic would fall into disarray and compliance once the White House committed US and NATO military forces into combat against Yugoslavia.
US analysts are known to have told the White House that once air strikes began against Yugoslavia, as they did on March 24, 1999, then refugees in massive numbers would begin to flee from Kosovo into neighboring countries. There were, before the air strikes began, no refugees in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and only a few (those connected with the UCK) in the anarchic northern areas of Albania. There is no question but that the White House had been told unequivocally by its own intelligence services that a massive refugee flight from Kosovo would begin with the bombing. The White House chose to ignore this advice.
This writer returned to Yugoslavia to compare the media coverage with the facts on the ground. This particular passage was written, on April 19, 1999, at 22.35hrs, as air raid sirens were wailing throughout Belgrade. What was discovered "on the ground" was a very different reality to that being promoted by the US and UK administrations.
Civilian Targets: Despite claiming victory for the destruction of Yugoslavia's oil refining capability, the US and NATO failed to disclose the reality of their air strikes. This writer saw the results of some of the strikes. In the city of Pancevo, virtually a suburb of Belgrade, air strikes had repeatedly hit the oil refinery, the fertilizer factory and the petrochemical plant — all among the largest installations of their type in South-Eastern Europe — and an aircraft manufacturing facility.
The damage was indeed enormous, but, despite repeated claims that only military-related targets were being hit, it was clear that at Pancevo, and at many other locations in Yugoslavia, strictly and unequivocally civil targets were being struck. This, given the precision of the targeting, indicated that the conduct of the war and its objectives were very different than those being cited by the White House.
By April 19, 1999, a conservative estimate concluded that 400,000 to 500,000 Yugoslavs (not counting the Kosovo refugees) out of the appr. 11-million population had directly lost their employment because of the destruction of their factories. This meant that some two-million people were without income. But indirectly, the impact on employment was far greater. When the 300,000 car-a-year automobile factory — the one which made the Yugo car — was destroyed, for example, all of the component makers were themselves "hit": they lost their customer, forcing their own closure or cutbacks.
At Pancevo alone, some 10,000 people were thrown out of work, and the city began to empty as children were sent to stay with relatives in the country, and those rendered jobless took their families in search of safety.
The air strikes against the oil refinery may have been understandable, given that a legitimate military or strategic target is indeed the fuel supply which services the Armed Forces. But it was struck, on one of the attacks, on the first day of the Orthodox Easter, a pointed reminder that the Clinton White House — which had hesitated to launch strikes against Iraq during the Muslim Ramadan holy period of fasting — cared little for the sentiments of the Orthodox communities worldwide. This did not pass unnoticed among the 300-million Orthodox Christians around the world.
The total value of the damage in Pancevo was about $ 1.3-billion, some $ 650-million of this at the oil refinery, which was hit a total of three times (by April 19, 1999). [Total cost of the war to the Yugoslav infrastructure during the first 30 days of bombing is estimated at $ 100-billion.] The flames at the Pancevo oil refinery, soaring 20 meters into the air, and billowing black smoke continued unabated two days after the last of the strikes.
The nearby HIP Petrochemija petrochemical plant was also severely hit, and the careful strikes were not an accidental spillover from the hits on the oil refinery. Several facts are important with this. There was clearly no strategic or military value to the HIP plant; it was purely a strike to deliberately create hardship and unemployment. This target, and scores (perhaps hundreds) of other air strikes at civilian targets throughout Yugoslavia, demonstrates clearly that the strategic objective presumably dictated by the Clinton White House is the punishment of the Yugoslav population, not (as is stated repeatedly) the "destruction of Milosevic's military machine".
This directly contradicts US Secretary of State Madeline Albright's statements to the Yugoslav people, in Serbo-Croat, that she "loves" the Serbian people and does not wish to punish them for the alleged misdeeds of their Federal President. Regardless of President Clinton's motives, Secretary Albright clearly harbors enormous animus toward the Serbian people, although those who knew her in Belgrade before and after World War II can recall no incident which might have colored her judgment of Yugoslavia.
But specifically the strike against HIP Petrochemija highlighted the gratuitous campaign against the civil population, rather than military targets. HIP manufactures chlorine for use in PVC. Had chlorine stockpiles been hit, then Pancevo would have lost its entire population to the toxic outflow into the atmosphere. HIP executives, working with town officials, feared air strike damage when the attacks began and worked feverishly to process and move the chlorine. Moving it untreated would have been difficult and would have merely led to further problems.
Luckily, at the last minute, the facility was largely emptied of chlorine when the strikes occurred.
On March 24, 1999, however, a Romanian train was at Pancevo railway yard when air strikes began hitting targets less than a kilometer away. About 800 tonnes of chlorine was aboard the train. Had it been hit, most of Belgrade's population would have been killed by the toxic outflow. As it was, the levels of toxicity in the atmosphere after the waves of strikes in Pancevo were many times higher than the safe level.
Not all of the toxins came from the oil refinery or the petrochemical plant.
A major fertilizer plant, not far from the refinery and the HIP plant, was also hit: another clear civil target. Here, had the plant's liquid ammonia stockpiles been hit, the environmental damage would have been enormous, as in the case of the chlorine. As it was, there was sufficient chlorine and liquid ammonia, coupled with the petroleum which was hit, to create the high toxicity levels in the city and to produce an enormous, lingering cloud which was moving toward Belgrade. The wind shifted and much of the cloud dissipated into the upper atmosphere to flow over other parts of Europe.
The fertilizer plant was hit on Western Easter, April 4, killing several workers and injuring dozens more. Ironically, this day was as sacred to the city as Orthodox Easter: a large Slovak and Hungarian population lived near the facility and worked in it. The Reformist and Evangelical Christians from these two communities spent their Easter in mourning.
City officials and civilians we spoke with in Pancevo said that they believed that the US targeting of their town's highly-volatile products was evidence of a US policy of genocide toward the Serbs. Why else would they risk such "collateral damage" which could have cost literally millions of lives in the greater Belgrade metro area?
Pancevo was not left alone with the destruction of these three facilities. An aircraft manufacturing facility, Utva Lola Corporation (a joint State/worker owned company like the petrochemical and fertilizer plants) on the edge of the city was completely destroyed by repeated Cruise Missile attacks, starting early in the air war. The facility produced only agricultural aircraft at this stage, although during the previous era — under the now defunct Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) — it produced the Arao indigenous fighter aircraft, an example of which still sits as a monument at the factory gates.
This facility, at a stretch, could be considered at least a potential military target. Certainly it could have serviced military aircraft. The factory was hit four times, with damage estimated at $ 450-million [the capital investment in the plant, high for a facility to make agricultural aircraft, reflected its military aircraft origins]. In the process, some 100 homes were hit, many destroyed. We saw the damaged houses, and the tractor-towed carts of families moving out of the town and into the hoped-for safety of the countryside.
The general impression is that this is an area populated solely by Serbs. But Serbia is home to some 26 ethnic groups, only one of which — the Kosovo Albanians — has some members which refuse to call themselves "Yugoslav". The Pancevo area is no different: it is home to some 20 ethnic groups. The spires of the churches of a half-dozen different Christian sects dot the city.
By April 19, 1999, it was estimated by Yugoslav authorities that some 1,000 of their citizens had been killed by the bombing and some 6,000 more wounded. Given the extent of the damage seen by this writer, the claims are not difficult to believe.
Some 200 schools had been hit to at least some degree, and schools with about 800,000 students were closed because of the war, and had been since March 24. No-one wants to risk a full strike on a school filled with children.
A pipeline on one of the five destroyed Danube bridges carried water to some 600,000 people. The heating plant in Novi (New) Belgrade was destroyed, cutting off steam heating to about half of Belgrade. Afew months earlier, such an attack would have led to widespread death and suffering in the bitter Balkan winter. These things we saw.
NATO Losses and the Military Costs: It is clear from the amount and quality of intelligence received by this journal from a variety of highly-reputable sources that NATO forces have already suffered significant losses of men, women and material. Neither NATO, nor the US, UK or other member governments, have admitted to these losses, other than the single USAF F-117A Stealth fighter which was shown, crashed and burning inside Serbia.
The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff had denied, about a month into the bombing, that the US had suffered the additional losses reported to Defense & Foreign Affairs.
By April 20, 1999, NATO losses stood at approximately the following:1
* 38 fixed-wing combat aircraft;
* Six helicopters;
* Seven unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs);
* "Many" Cruise Missiles (lost to AAA or SAM fire).
Several other NATO aircraft were reported down after that date, including at least one of which there was Serbian television coverage. The aircraft reportedly include three F-117A Stealth strike aircraft, including the one already known. One of the remaining two was shot down in an air-to-air engagement with a Yugoslav Air Force MiG-29 fighter; the other was lost to AAA (anti-aircraft artillery) or SAM (surface-to-air missile) fire. Given the recovery by the Yugoslavs of F-117A technology, and the fact that the type has proven less than invincible, the mystique of the aircraft — a valuable deterrent tool until now for the US — has been lost.
At least one USAF F-15 Eagle fighter had been reported lost, with the pilot, reportedly an African-American major, alive and in custody as a POW.
At least one German pilot (some sources say two men, implying perhaps a Luftwaffe crew from a Tornado) was reported to have been captured.
There was also a report that at least one US female pilot has been killed.
In one instance in the first week of the fighting, an aircraft was downed near Podgorica. A NATO helicopter then picked up the downed pilot, but the helicopter itself was then shot down, according to a number of reports.
Losses of US and other NATO ground force personnel, inside Serbia, were also reported to have been extensive.
A Yugoslav Army unit ambushed a squad climbing a ravine south of Priština, killing 20 men. When the black tape was taken from their dog-tags it was found that 12 were US Green Berets; eight were British special forces (presumably Special Air Service/SAS). This incident apparently occurred within a week or so of the bombing campaign launch.
It is known that other US and other NATO casualties have, on some occasions, been retrieved by NATO forces after being hit inside Yugoslavia. At least 30 bodies of US servicemen have been processed through Athens, after being transported from the combat zone.
At least two of the helicopters downed by the Yugoslavs were carrying troops, and in these two a total of 50 men were believed to have been killed, most of them (but not all) of US origin.
Certainly, the US has lost to ground fire and malfunction a number of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. At least some of these have been retrieved more or less intact, and the technology has been immediately reviewed by Yugoslav engineers. More than one told this writer that the technology was now readily able to be replicated in Yugoslavia.
The war has cost Alliance members in other ways, too. There is enormous disaffection with the US Armed Forces. For a start, to prosecute even the smallest expansion of the war requires the call-up of Reserve and National Guard units. The personnel from these units have civilian jobs, and, as with the US involvement in S-FOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina, being called up for active duty in the Balkans seems to be an open-ended thing. This is not the type of national emergency for which most of them signed-on.
On top of that, there are questions about the wisdom of the orders they are receiving, and a total lack of clear strategic (let alone military) objectives. One serving career mid-level military officer in the US told this writer: "I am incredibly appalled at this war, or whatever it is, and the lack of strategic thought; the bungling, stumbling blind policies which have led to this [situation], and the murderous impact on not just the Serbs and Kosovos, but on the concepts of conflict resolution and sovereignty."
The officer continued: "I am very upset, and while I have been vocal in my small world, and many agree with me, I am part of a system that is stumbling as best it can to implement the failed brain-work of the NCA [National Command Authority; the President] and SecState [Secretary of State], and General [Wesley] Clark [Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, for NATO], too. Why haven't the military leadership stepped up and put their job on the line for common sense."
The problem is not confined to the US forces. In Britain, a near mutiny was reported aboard the carrier HMS Invincible. And as news of very real NATO casualties emerge, morale will decline. Meanwhile, those who have any knowledge of the facts know that since 1948, Yugoslavia, particularly under Tito, has been preparing to fight, literally, World War III. NATO heavy armor may indeed roll easily across the Albanian border, or down across the fertile plains of Vojvodina from Hungary, right into Belgrade. But most of Yugoslavia is mountainous, and the mountains filled with underground fuel supplies, ammunition factories, probably oil refineries, buried hangars and roads which become airstrips.
And those in the US Armed Forces believe that the Clinton White House, from the President — an anti-Vietnam War protester and conscription dodger — and First Lady down to the young Clintonite staffers, hate the US Armed Forces with a passion. It is clear that the determination of the Yugoslavs to defend their country has strengthened; after all, they have no-where else to go. But already the morale of the NATO forces is declining.
The Refugee Burden Inside Serbia: What has not been discussed in the international media is the fact that Yugoslavia has already been bearing what is one of the biggest refugee burdens, per capita, of any country in the world. Almost 1-million refugees from the earlier cycles of war — since 1991-92 — have fled into Yugoslavia, mostly Serbia. These include not only Bosnian Serbs and Croatian Serbs, but also Croatian Catholics and Muslims who feared for their safety in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia.
Yugoslavia has received no substantial international aid to support, re-settle or accommodate these refugees. Many have been absorbed into the society.
With the start of the Kosovo bombings by NATO, about one-third of the total refugee flow did not move toward the Albanian or Macedonian borders, but rather moved further up into Serbia. Some, of course, went into the Yugoslav Republic of Montenegro. Those moving into Serbia did so largely to escape the KLA, and by late April 1999 it was clear from interviews with some Kosovo Albanian men of fighting age who had fled the bombing into Albania proper that they wished to return to their Kosovo homes rather than be forced to stay in the camps and face coercion by the KLA.
Bombing the Refugees into Compliance: There is very little doubt but that the bulk of the refugee problem relating to the Kosovo dispute is the result of the NATO bombing exercise. There are those who claim that the Yugoslav Government initiated a campaign of "ethnic cleansing" under the cover of the bombing, but there is little real evidence to support this. Indeed, every time the US Administration, the UK Government or NATO have talked of "compelling evidence" they never actually showed it. The television coverage of understandably distraught refugees coming across the borders into Albania and Macedonia told the tale, requiring only a few words of "interpretation", often from genuinely concerned humanitarian workers who had already bought the argument about "ethnic cleansing".
That is not to say that atrocities, other than those very real atrocities committed by air power, did not occur. There may well be evidence that violations of human rights occurred on all sides. But it is known through hard intelligence that the KLA intended to use "the KLA Air Force" — NATO — as the cover for its ground operations. These operations were mostly based around intimidation of the people in whose name the KLA was ostensibly fighting: the Kosovo Albanians.
The view, propagated by outside observers (who had never been into the area or studied it), that "the Serbs" wanted to "cleanse" Kosovo of "ethnic Albanians" is ludicrous. There were 20 national groups living in Kosovo, all in relative harmony most of the time. That the residents of Albanian origin caused most of the problems for the Yugoslav authorities is well-known, but the problems mostly stemmed from the fact that many were illegal immigrants from Albania, in Yugoslavia for economic reasons. By the 1990s, however, there was a new generation of Albanian Kosovos, born in Yugoslavia, not in Albania.
For the most part, the Yugoslav Government was (and claims still to be) happy to have them in the country; after all, one third of all Yugoslavs are not Serbs, in any event. As noted earlier, Serbia is the most multinational, multi-religious state in the Balkans.
So when it appeared that a massive exodus was occurring as a result of the bombing (aided by the actions of the KLA and, presumably, some by-now angered Serbian paramilitary groups), it was clear to the Yugoslav Government that the problem was enormous. "We do not want Kosovo emptied of people," many Yugoslavs have told me in different ways, "even though there is now much anger between the Serbs and the Albanians, who each blame the other for the bombing and the terror."
So Yugoslavia attempted during the first 30 days of the bombing to close the Albanian and Macedonian borders, in order to persuade Kosovos to return to their homes. When the exodus was in full swing, US and NATO authorities — supported by the sanctimonious voices of such politicians as British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, a man embroiled in personal ethical scandals — claimed that it was as a result of Serbian "ethnic cleansing". When the refugee flow slowed, the same officials claimed that it must be because "the Serbs" were holding the refugees as "human shields".
Clearly, from the Clinton viewpoint, no action taken by the Yugoslavs could be allowed to be seen as normal or reasonable.
Inevitably, when the flow of rhetoric had numbed the Western audiences, the predictable cry of "rape camps" went up from left-wing sources, who felt that such a crime must be taking place, given the fact that "the Serbs" were "less than human". It is worth noting that the original claims of "rape camps" in the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict were proven false, and the journalists who originally propagated the stories did so on speculation, not on fact. But the mud stuck.
It is probably true that rapes have occurred during the current conflict. Certainly, the KLA, having worked with the Bosnians and Iranians during the earlier psychological war, knew that they had to have rapes in order to get attention. But in such an instance, the natural, or logical suspicion, for such activities would fall on the KLA rather than the Serbs, who are so keenly attuned to the horror of an accusation they have faced before.
It is also relevant to note that the statistics for Yugoslavia for the crime of rape are on a par with the rape statistics for most Western countries. Is the implication of the propaganda that something special triggers "mass rapes" and "rape camps" among people not normally so disposed?
The NATO (mainly US) bombings of the Kosovo tractor and car convoys noted earlier in this report began at a time when the refugees were starting to move back toward their homes. Many had realized the futility of crossing the border. So the four convoys hit that day were all comprised of Kosovos returning home, not "fleeing the Serbs". It could be argued that for the Kosovos of all nationalities to arrive at a settlement and to stop running from the bombs would represent a disaster for the Clinton policy.
We are aware that the US Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Department each warned the Clinton Administration that the bombing would trigger a mass flight of the population of Kosovo. It was initially believed by professional intelligence analysts and defense officers in the US that the Clinton team had ignored the warning because of naivete. But this was not so.
The Clinton team wanted to create a steady stream of refugees in order to justify prolonging the bombing. And they relied on the KLA to help in this regard.
It could equally be argued that the Clinton team (speaking here of Clinton, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and Secretary of State Madeline Albright, not the professionals) wanted a state of ongoing bombing to continue without significant ground force involvement. This would be a low-cost (in human terms), low-risk way to achieve their aims. But clearly it was a policy which could not be sustained. The Armed Forces of the US, and NATO, inevitably would insist on either withdrawal or "completion" of the job.
Environmental Pollution: The environmental damage caused by the bombing of Yugoslav oil refineries, petro-chemical plants and fertilizer facilities alone is obvious. As well, of course, the dropping of 10,000 tonnes of ordnance by the NATO aircraft in the first 30 days of the assault also leaves a legacy to be dealt with over many years, as the ordnance problem in post-war Cambodia demonstrated. But in addition to this, even by Day 30 of the bombing, oil was seeping into the Danube from destroyed Yugoslav facilities. An oil slick some 15km long and some 20 meters wide was already damaging the ecology of the river.
Disruptions to Trade: Apart, of course, from the disruptions to Yugoslav trade, the destruction by NATO of at least five major bridges across the Danube meant that this important river no longer was open for international traffic. Clearance could take six months after the conclusion of hostilities.
The closure of the Danube shuts off one of the most important trade links across Europe, literally cutting off cargo movement from Western Europe to Eastern Europe. This is in many ways a slightly less-significant parallel to the closure by Israel of Egypt's Suez Canal during the 1967 Six Day War. Then, commercial sea traffic was forced to go around the Southern Africa's Cape of Good Hope instead of through the Canal. This meant the construction of new types of ships, longer transit times and therefore significantly higher costs for goods forced to make the longer voyage.
The same will be true of the East-West trade which relied on the Danube artery. The cost to Germany, Austria, Romania, Croatia, Bulgaria and, of course, Yugoslavia, will be significant. And other countries which relied on the Danube as part of an East-West freight link will also be affected.
MEDIA COMPLICITY
FOR ALL THAT journalists deny that it influences their judgment, wars sell newspapers and increase broadcast news ratings. Journalists and editors will note that they have nothing to do with the business aspect of their news mediums. And, for the most part, this is true. However, while the profit motive may be disregarded by the journalists and editors, the competitive desire to take the lead in a news environment means that there is an urge to report the most sensational news possible.
"Dog Bites Man" is not news; "Man Bites Dog" is news. So it is important that news stress the negative, or the sensational.
Few Western media editors are prepared to "go against the flow" of popular belief on any subject. And once the Balkan wars began again with the break-up of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991-92, the propaganda wars initially hammered the Serbs, who were totally ill-equipped to deal with the Western media phenomenon.
The poor impression of the Serbs — their pseudospeciation — although ignoring the reality of history, has remained over the past eight years. It was all too easy to revive the shibboleths of the anti-Serb. When Clinton wanted a villain, the Serbs were ready-made.
It is for that reason that Clinton, and NATO, have been able to propose demands which are totally outside the realm of civilized state behavior. This includes the demand that the sovereignty of a state be compromised: the UN Charter specifically discusses the inviolability of borders, for example. As well, when Clinton ordered the attack on President Milosevic's home on April 22, 1999, he blatantly violated US law which prohibits targeting a foreign head-of-state. This was immediately dismissed with the glib statement that the attack was not on the Yugoslav leader but on his "command and control facilities".
Much of the histrionic and unsubstantiated propaganda has been accepted by a news-gathering community which, despite minor grumblings, accepts the legitimacy and credibility of governments. It often takes much for journalists to believe that the most powerful are not always the most truthful.
But when Clinton ordered the air strike on the headquarters of Serbian television on April 23, 1999, it proved too much for most foreign correspondents who were in Belgrade to cover the war. Indeed, despite being in Belgrade, most had been anti-Serb and reflected the attitudes of the news organs in their own countries. A large gathering of foreign journalists was held at the Belgrade Hyatt Regency Hotel to protest the TV station bombing and the targeting of journalists. The journalists recognized that when they are targeted then the attackers are usually unwilling to hear free debate. Even those journalists hostile to the Serbs felt that the strike could just as easily been directed at the transmitters, not at the newsrooms.
It may well be that the strike on Serbian TV, which cost 10 lives and many wounded, will be one of the worst moves of the Clinton team, even though other strikes caused more civilian damage. As it transpired, Serbian TV was back on the air again within six hours: the only real impact of the strike, apart from ending 10 lives and damaging many more, was the fact that Clinton may have finally made the enemies who count: those in the media. Indeed, the foreign press in Belgrade had not anticipated that NATO SACEUR General Wesley Clark would go against his NATO colleagues and order the strike on Serbian TV. Those who know Clark's "fine sense of political reality" knew that he would obey the White House, however. And, significantly, Serbian authorities expected it, which is why they were ready to go on the air again so quickly.
MILITARY, STRATEGIC AND MILITARY-POLITICAL LESSONS
IT IS NOT TOO early to learn some military, strategic and military-political lessons from the current "NATO war" against Yugoslavia. Indeed, if we wait until the conflict has ended, there is a good chance, as with all wars, that the "lessons" will be learned only partly, or that the key problems will be overlooked by the world community because the "lessons" will be derived from the writings of the most powerful state(s) which survive the war. I do not say "victors", because should the war progress through to a major ground war then there will be no victors. That, indeed, is one of the "lessons": avoid wars without clearly achievable and finite military and political objectives.
From the defender's viewpoint, the objectives are easier to define: survival as a nation, survival with viability, survival with a sense of national honor, minimization of casualties, retention of sovereign credibility, and so on.
Some of the military lessons clearly available at present include:
1. The lessons of coalition warfare: The air operations against Yugoslavia, at least for the first month, went well for NATO, despite the fact that it was an ad hoc conflict, with no goals and no real military objectives. It produced neither the military nor political goals which the politicians said they sought, but that was not the fault of the military, who clearly had little say on much of the target selection.
But the coordination of aircraft, and particularly the use of airborne sensors and command and control, was effective.
The NATO administrative machinery, involved in its first war in 50 years, worked well. Secrecy of operations, and particularly on operational problems, was good. There seemed to be good airspace management, with little confusion, despite the fact that a wide range of forces were being thrown into the mix without any real planning. So, from some view-points, NATO showed that it could operate effectively at very short notice. And under normal circumstances, it would be responding to a proper military crisis, not a political war ("Clinton's War", as it is termed in the US Congress). This means that professionals would be in charge of (military) target selection, and objectives would be clearly-defined.
2. The cost of the loss of technology: There must be some concern over the loss of advanced technology. It is easy for US military leaders to dismiss the loss of an F-117 Stealth fighter as being "20 year-old technology", and a Tomahawk Cruise Missile as "12 year-old technology", but the fact remains that it is the most current US operational technology. There is no doubt, given the components recovered by the Yugoslavs from downed US weapons, that both Yugoslavia and Russia could within months field weapons of equal complexity to the Tomahawk.
Is NATO yet ready to deal with such weapons if the conflict lingers, or resurfaces in a year or two from, say, a coalition led by Russia?
And if a rival to the F-117 cannot be easily produced, then defenses against it are now clearly becoming easier to devise. Similarly, the helicopter-borne forces, which fared so well in the Gulf War, are now clearly very vulnerable, despite the fact that Yugoslavia has not been using very advanced weapons. The old 23mm and 57mm anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) systems have done well, as have older missiles, such as the SA-3.
3. The strategic cost of loss of mobility in other theaters: Today, the People's Republic of China (PRC) has some 200 medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBM) each capable of taking a nuclear, chemical or biological load, in the area immediately facing the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan. When the PRC last threatened to invade Taiwan, three years ago, it had only 50 such MRBMs in the region. And then the US — even with the Clinton Administration fairly kindly-disposed toward Beijing and diffident toward Taipei — had two major assets in the region: Defense Secretary Bill Perry and a couple of carrier battle groups.
Today, Perry (who put the carriers into the Strait of Taiwan to deter the PRC) has retired, reportedly disgusted with the Clinton White House failure to support its treaty commitments (such as those to Taiwan). And there are no US carrier battle groups off the North-East Asian littoral. At the same time, the DPRK (North Korea) is strengthening its military command and is provocatively testing long-range ballistic missiles over Japan. The DPRK has abandoned any real pretense over the matter of its deployment of operational nuclear weapons.
So there is little which the US could do to meet its treaty obligations to defend Taiwan and South Korea if, even now, the PRC and DPRK decided to take what they have long said they would, one day, take: Taiwan and South Korea.
The constraints on US force flexibility will be total if the US is forced to commit to a major ground campaign in Yugoslavia. Even now, the US has thrown away most of its remaining stand-off strike weapons, the Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, in the current campaign against Yugoslavia. The result is that the US, if it is forced to fight in Asia (and its forces in South Korea are automatically committed if the North comes across the DMZ), then it must fight nose-to-nose, or it must decide early-on to go nuclear.
Significantly, if a major war is undertaken against Yugoslavia, then it must be assumed that there would be as much as a 90 percent chance that war would break out in Asia, in either Korea, or between the PRC and ROC. And North Korea and the PRC believe that they could now win a quick victory in their respective campaigns. That is, in fact, more likely than the prospect that NATO could win quickly in Yugoslavia.
But that is not all. The lack of US mobility means that other wars are likely to emerge. Some form of confrontation would almost certainly re-emerge in the Middle East. Perhaps several. Iraq could easily go into Kuwait again, and possibly also end the Western embargo on its military operations in the north and south of the country.
Iran could easily move to either topple the Saudi Government, or coerce it into a compliant state which would augur very badly for Egypt and Jordan, in particular. It would be expected that such a scenario would also entail a re-escalation of radical activities within Egypt, and among the Palestinians. Israel would almost certainly react rapidly and decisively.
And within NATO itself (as discussed below), a Greek-Turkish confrontation would be very probable, with Greece finally moving to oust the Turks from Cyprus.
Almost certainly, there would be hitherto unconsidered eventualities. The entire world could boil, with no, or few, US or NATO assets available to project Western power.
4. The cost of warfighting assets: Most NATO countries, but particularly the US under the Clinton presidency, have dramatically reduced real defense spending since 1991. The US subsequently expended much of its Reagan and Bush era ordnance in the Gulf War and then in subsequent "police actions". More Cruise Missiles were launched against Iraq in the years following the Gulf War than in the war itself, showing in hindsight just how prudent the campaign in 1991 had been in the actual expenditure of high-cost weapons.
The service life of most key NATO weapons and support systems has been reduced because of the increased wear-and-tear caused by the existing air operations against Yugoslavia, and, in the case of the US, by its deployments against Iraq in recent years.
The most modern and capable coalition of armed forces in the world — NATO — now has fairly mature weapons systems in service, many in need of replacement. On the other hand, the military capabilities of the PRC, DPRK and even Russia are once again improving. The relative balance between NATO and its potential adversaries is now very different than it was, say, five years ago.
5. The cost to NATO's survivability: Behind the facade of unanimity at NATO's 50th Anniversary summit in Washington DC on April 23-24, 1999, there was enormous concern and considerable mutual hostility among some members. France, finally back into a leadership role in the military wing of NATO, is clearly (but quietly) horrified at the cavalier use of the Alliance in Yugoslavia.
The new members of the Alliance — Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland — had viewed NATO as a club which would both protect them from a revival of Russian imperialism and at the same time admit them to the Western economic circle. Thus far, the cost to each of them in economic and political terms has been considerable. Far from being members of a safe club, they are now expected to engage in NATO's war against their near-neighbor.
Greece, an Orthodox Christian country (like much of Yugoslavia and Cyprus), has felt itself isolated by the Yugoslav conflict and has refused to align itself against Serbia.
Italy, which has had a strong domestic civil reaction against deployment in the Yugoslav conflict, knows it would suffer enormously (perhaps more than any other NATO country except Greece) if the fighting escalated. Italy has already suffered enormously from the overflow of Albanian and Kosovo refugees, and from the large upsurge in criminal activities caused by Albanians and their Iranian (and other) sponsors.
The negative economic impact on Greece and Italy alone may be enough to tax the overall economic harmony of the European Union (EU). But the strains may finally pit Greece and Turkey against each other, given that some Turks feel that Turkey has an historical interest in re-projecting Islam into the Balkans. The attempted break-up of Yugoslavia and the FYR of Macedonia to create Albanian enclaves directly affects Greece, which would be forced to seriously consider attempting to appropriate the non-Albanian part of the FYR of Macedonia, if only to protect the inhabitants from being totally swallowed into "Greater Albania". The degradation of the situation from that point is not entirely predictable.
Considerably more research needs to be undertaken into the ramifications of conflict expansion for NATO. The Washington summit speeches talked about "creating a new mission for NATO", and about "projecting and protecting shared ideals". But that was not the purpose of NATO, which was optimized as a defensive alliance, not an offensive one.
The reality is that NATO still does not have a true strategic mission. The use of NATO for the Yugoslav exercise at the insistence of Clinton, and with the seemingly mindless support from the UK's Blair, only reinforces that reality. It is apparent to all that the protection of Kosovo refugees, if that is the present rationale for taking the world to war, is a fairly flimsy platform for "projecting and protecting common ideals".
So it must be assumed that the Yugoslav adventure will hurt NATO more than help it, quite apart from the prospect of all the other costs and the possible overflow of conflict to other regions. It is feasible that, even if escalation to a ground war is abandoned and the air war ends by, say, July 1, NATO may still not survive the damage done to it.
Clinton, Blair and NATO Secretary-General Javier Solano spent most of their careers blindly opposing NATO. Now that they have it within their grasp, they are mis-using it and thus may achieve their original objective: to destroy it.
6. Managing Unexpected Human and Asset Losses: One of the things which NATO did successfully in the first 30 days of the air campaign was to maintain very effective secrecy on the loss of the human and material assets in the war, discussed earlier in this report.
This "success", however, is almost certain to backfire. Certainly, the Yugoslavs are aware of the NATO losses, so the secrecy cannot be sustained on the grounds that "enemy" knowledge of the facts would hamper NATO's ability to prosecute the war. Rather, the secrecy was deemed essential to stem opposition to the war from within NATO societies.
Clearly, most US planners went into the campaign against Yugoslavia with the feeling that the enemy would be easier to defeat even than Iraq's Saddam Hussein. This is the price of victory over Iraq: excessive confidence.
This journal has been covering the Balkans conflict closely since 1992 and we have had a great many contacts since that time with US intelligence and military officers who were baffled by our analysis. There was an almost fatalistic willingness to believe the West's own propaganda about the situation in the Balkans, rather than to read history, or to attempt to understand the peoples of the region.
This is still the case.
The constant NATO, US Defense Department, US State Department and White House briefings about how "Yugoslavia's military capability has been severely degraded" and about how "we have hit Milosevic where he lives" have been exercises in self-delusion and have been viewed with amazement in Belgrade.
What will happen now, when the truth of NATO casualties begins to emerge? Will this cause the US and European publics to say "enough is enough"? Or will it cause outrage and the demand that the matter must now be settled by war?
7. The cost of burdening military leaders with political objectives: NATO is a military alliance, designed and tasked to fulfill military functions as directed by the Alliance political leadership. Why, then, are people such as NATO SACEUR Gen. Wesley Clark, and the US and UK chiefs of staff, and even the NATO public affairs officer, Jamie Shea, making statements of a political nature against Yugoslav leaders?
These officials have left themselves open to complicity in the political mistakes of their elected leaders. A decade ago, no NATO official would have dared engage in the kind of self-justifying political statements of the type which Clark and Shea, in particular, have engaged.
What this has done is to make it more difficult for NATO military leaders to plan a strategic "exit strategy" from the conflict. Early in the war, when blood-lust was up, it may have seemed a fairly acceptable posture. Today, it has all the hall-marks of General Custer's comments about Chief Sitting Bull, just before the battle of Little Big Horn.
In a sense, by abandoning professional neutrality, the defense leadership, including the civilian defense ministers/secretaries, have made it more difficult for them to advocate coherent and rational policies for the conduct of the war. They are now bound up in their political masters' path, something which does not help them to guide those same political masters to the best possible courses of action.
8. The loss of prestige: The late strategic philosopher Dr Stefan Possony, who co-founded this journal with me in 1972, said that prestige was the credit rating of nations. He meant that in many ways. Deterrence, for example, is totally dependent on the prestige of a defensive system. That prestige derives from perceptions about professionalism of operational capability, about strategic conduct, and, very often, about being on "the right side". It is significant that during the Cold War, the US was often admired and respected by the average Soviet citizen, and certainly by the citizens of the Warsaw Treaty Organization states, A number of those Warsaw Pact states moved rapidly at the Cold War's end to join the US-led Western economic structure and NATO.
Polls in Russia in mid-April 1999 showed 98 percent of Russians opposed to NATO's action against Yugoslavia. And former Deputy Prime Minister of Russia Anatoliy Chubalas told the BBC on April 22, 1999, that a unified Russia — unified by the current conflict — saw NATO as a predatory organization.
Russians, he said, feared the West as never before; nuclear war was never closer than now. There was a general perception, he said, that after Iraq and Yugoslavia, Russia was the next to be vilified by the West and targeted as an enemy.
The loss of Western prestige over the past seven years goes well beyond Russia, however. Clearly, India and Pakistan feel that they can no longer rely on Western arbitration and have opted to finally make public their commitment to strategic defense systems of their own. Terrorist groups, such as that of Osama bin Laden, appear to hit the US at will.
In the Eritrea-Ethiopia dispute, now underway, Eritrea virtually threw out senior US envoys even when those envoys were trying to help Eritrea. Ethiopia treated the envoys little better.
So in a sense, NATO leaders are correct when they insist on a victory for the Alliance in the conflict with Yugoslavia. A military defeat would signal even more chaos. But a victory with some compassion is what is needed, and quickly, if NATO is to retain credibility and the moral high ground. Perhaps it is already too late for that.
But there can be no question: NATO and the US-led West will have no future, no real power (and will face decline, opposition and loss of markets) if the war is not ended quickly and if the West does not take an even-handed approach to major issues for the foreseeable future.
The restoration of prestige — reputation — is difficult after mistakes have been made of this magnitude and morals compromised.
Illustrations shown in original print version of this story were as follows: Photo 1, Pancevo oil refinery, still burning after a series of air strikes, continued pumping black smoke into the air over Belgrade for days; Photo 2, US Congressman Jim Saxton with Yugoslav Foreign Minister Jovanovic in Belgrade on April 19, 1999; Photos 1 and 2, author
Footnote:
1. NATO losses were almost all denied by NATO and member states during the conflict, and many losses continue to be denied subsequently. The validity of some claims of NATO casualties has subsequently been confirmed, however, although the Yugoslav claims were in many instances also unable to be confirmed.
Another instance of where "liberal's wanting accountability" have just plain f**king not happened.
SL
Earmarks Over All
By Robert Novak
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/earmarks_over_all.html
HILL'S CASH EYED AS CHINESE-LAUNDERED
By CHARLES HURT in Washington and ELAINE CHAN in New York
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202007/news/nationalnews/hills_cash_eyed_as_chinese_lau.htm
For those of you who state the "liberal wants accountability" bullsh*t...start with this POS.
SL
One more time...
Geez...
You are truly one ignorant f**k...
SL
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=23487060
I realize the essay may cover more than you can comprehend, but the "topic" of "liberal accountability" is there...it simply takes someone smarter then yourself to find/see it.
SL
"The difference between libs and people like you is that libs understand what is going on"
So...I take it those liberal children books are taking your learning to a whole new level...good for you!
Try this...it has no pictures though :(
The Genocidal Mentality, Pt 2:
The Great Humanitarian Wars
The Kosovo war in the Balkans was peddled as a war against genocide, but this ignores the underlying economic reasons (IMF restructuring) the led to the conflict.
It has become a feature of the last 20th and earlier 21st century that the planet has become embroiled in what are called 'humanitarian wars' which, it has been said, are being fought to 'prevent genocide' and are targeting 'new Hitler' who once again threatens the world with tyranny and genocide. In the case of the Balkan conflict and the war in Kosovo, this war against 'ethnic cleansing' and 'the new Hitler' was supported even by many who could be called 'liberals' who were appalled by the prospect of 'genocide' and thus were willing to support military intervention.
Using the Balkan conflict as the template, one can suppose that the planet can look forward to more of these 'humanitarian wars' targeting 'Hitler' in the future, and the ideological premise given for these conflicts will be so compelling that they will even split the 'peace movement' and leave 'liberals' divided among themselves. Certainly the Kosovo war provided the rough outline for the attempted justification of the war against Iraq, although, sadly, from the point of view of the planners, the stunt wasn't nearly as successful when they attempted to recycle the propaganda offensive used in the case of Kosovo and simply reuse the propaganda outline to fuel a war in Iraq.
One of the reasons the Kosovo war was able to split the 'peace camp' and leave even Liberals divided, was due to the general ignorance surrounding the causes of the war, and a lack of genuine understanding of the nature of what is going on in the world, combined with what might be called a diluted middle class liberal perspective of the way the world works.
The roots of the Kosovo conflict, and the current 'restructuring' drive being forced onto poor nations around the world (since these two are linked) go back to the Nixon administration, and the unilateral decision of the White House to deal with problems in supporting the American dollar by means of the Gold Standard by withdrawing from the Gold Standard and instead allowing the value of the U.S. currency to 'float' and be determined by market forces. This decision was abetted by shrew calculations of the effect of liberalizing capital markets, since the American economy was so huge that the end result would be to strengthen the American currency, leading to an even greater tendency for investors around the world to want to hold U.S. dollars and thus support American equity markets, leading to a much needed inflow of capital into American markets, warding off a problem with the balance of trade deficit.
Over the long term this strategy was successful, leading directly to the gigantic stock market bubble that developed in the 90s, and it was also a leading contributor to what became known as the Clinton economic boom, as the strength of the U.S. dollar, determined by market forces (rather than the gold standard) attracted large amounts of capital into the American economy and the U.S. equity markets (which fueled the bubble). Over the short term, the result of printing money not backed up with gold, was inflation, and the problem was compounded by war in the middle east, leading to the oil embargo, and equally inflationary oil price increases.
The introduction of inflationary pressures into the world economy, combined with high oil prices, led poorer nations to borrow money to pay for needed oil (inflation tends to reduce the burden of loans, and so this was not considered a dangerous strategy). However the end result of a number of years of inflation led directly to the appointment of an interventionist as the head of the Federal Reserve (Paul Volker) who jacked interests rates up to the 20 per cent level to finally bring the inflationary effect under control.
Sky rocketing interest rates brought disaster to poorer nations, who were now saddled with debts that were becoming impossible to pay, in particular since a concurrent recession had driven down the price of basic commodities on which their economies depend (colonialism had left these nations as 'suppliers of water and wood', and the manufacturing capacity was kept in the colonial nations, while the poorer colonized nations supplied cheap raw materials, a situation that inevitably contributed to the disasters to come later). Thus we find the IMF empowered with a new task, which continues to this day.
The IMF began the process of 'restructuring' poorer nations, by slashing social programs and other spending, imposing wage freezes which eroded spending power as inflation continued, causing prices to rise, combined with demands to end any subsidies or price controls, which intensified the problem, all of this made even worse by demands to 'rationalize' industry through increased firings and lay offs, all of these measures designed so as to free up the money poorer nations would need to keep up with loan payments. In the six years prior to the outbreak of the disastrous civil war in Yugoslavia poorer nations transferred a little less than 200 billion dollars to banks and international investors, one of the greatest transfers in wealth over such a short time that had ever occurred in history up to that time. Yugoslavia's debt payments were consuming a full one fifth of the nations economic output.
The end result of this process led to the collapse of the economy in Yugoslavia. As industry collapsed due to the collapsing spending power caused by the IMF prescription and there was no longer any social safety net to act as safety valve, ethnic rivalries began to develop in the nation, driven forward by the fall into poverty of the population of Yugoslavia. As anger developed in the different states of the Union, as living standards fell and little was left of social programs that might have helped cushion the impact, politicians began to pursue policies in the self interests of each state, leading to bitter rivalries and feuding. At first there was no warfare and the feuding did not express itself as 'ethnic cleansing' but rather Yugoslavia was riven by strikes and demonstrations for years. It was only after the economy completely collapsed that rivalrous militarists and extremists began to appear on the scene.
Much of this civil war fare was driven by fear and anger among the richer provinces such as Croatia and Slovenia, and the central government was attempting to quell unrest in the poorer provinces through transfer payments funded by these two states. Croatians and Slovenians began to demand the right to leave the federation and become independent states. Meanwhile about 60 per cent of the population was being plunged below the officially declared poverty level in Yugoslavia. The same disasters happened to poor countries all around the world, and eventually led to such feuds as the Yugoslav civil war and the Rwanda massacres, as different groups began expressing their resentments over their share of a shrinking pie by launching civil war (the crazed logic being that fewer mouths equals more pie for those remaining).
Eventually, just before the civil war, 'rationalization', the combination of wage freezes and price increases resulted in an inflation rate of over 1100 per cent in Yugoslavia. The process was made worse by the enforced liberalization of capital, in the form of floating the dinar and subjecting it to the influence of international capital markets. The central government lost all autonomy as its finances collapsed and it basically became an instrument for servicing foreign debt, and all transfer payments to the states ended. To make matters worse the IMF then demanded the closure of over three thousand 'under performing industries' which would throw close to two million people out of work at a time of basically nonexistent social programs, and cause the unemployment rate to soar to around 50 per cent. Most of these 'poor industries' were located in the poorer provinces of Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia, and Kosovo, and thus the battle lines were drawn for the coming outbreak of civil war.
When civil war finally broke out, the western propaganda machine kicked into high gear, and the public was fed the line about 'the new Hitler' and 'a new holocaust' in Europe, and this lie was required only to hide from the public the true nature of the cause of the conflict in the Balkans. The famous photo, that aroused so many 'liberals' to rally for the war, and divided the 'peace camp' showed the horrifying site of starved, skinny holocaust victims of the new Hitler, waiting for death in the new 'Auschwitz', staring out at the camera from behind the barbed wire of the 'death camp.' It turns out that what actually happened is that the photo was one of a refugee camp, not a 'death camp', and the barbed wire actually surrounded a tool shed. What had happened is that the photographer went into this enclosure around the tool shed and shot out at some skinny refugees through the surrounding barbed wire, to make the famous photograph of 'the new victims of the holocaust' awaiting death in the 'new Auschwitz'. Ironically, the only one surrounded by barbed wire in that photograph was the photographer, but this kind of lying propaganda was powerful stuff, and brought the liberals on board for what was supposed to be 'a great humanitarian war.'
kosovogenlg.jpg - 13599 Bytes
The faked photograph that provided the master narrative of genocide for the Kosovo war
Given that the Iraq war is similarly being fueled by ignorant lies, we can anticipate that the future of these 'great humanitarian wars' will be modeled after the fraudulently sold war in Kosovo, the whole idea being to make sure that no one understands the true nature of the conflict, and ideally such humanitarian wars should bring even liberals on board and split the peace camp. Certainly, the Iraq war, clumsily attempting to mimic the Kosovo propaganda line, was a failure in this regard, but tomorrow is another day, and another great humanitarian war, which using the lessons learned from both Kosovo and Iraq, might be handled with a little more finesse.
Now given that it was actually the IMF and the World Bank who were responsible for starving out those refugees (and not the 'Nazi Serbs') you would think that if 'liberals' and some in the 'peace camp' had known their history at the time, they might have been screaming for NATO to bomb the IMF, instead of devastating Yugloslavia. But I would suppose that if one wishes to bomb Serbs, instead of taking tar and feathers to the IMF, one needs to elect Democrats and defeat Bush, since history shows that those Republicans are just to ham handed to finesse the next great humanitarian war. No, that requires a Democrat, and they did a damn good job of it all the last time, too.
Given that the front runner in the Democratic race is the same General Clark who bombed the hell out of the Serbs, and almost started a world war by ordering some disobedient German General to bomb the Russians, only to get fired like Douglas MacArthur, well considering it all, at least the Democrats look set to elect someone who was in on that great humanitarian war, and thus might have the insight and finesse to carry off the next great humanitarian war, which could break out anywhere, since countries all over South America and Africa have been collapsing into economic ruins since the end of the 90s, and once again IMF policies are to blame, although, truly speaking, the IMF is not to blame, since the IMF is just the mouth piece for international capitalists. When you consider that fact, and how even slums will be created by Democrats to protect capitalists, you can understand why the IMF was protected and Serbs were demonized and bombed, while free market liberals supported this great humanitarian war.
It should be obvious that these so called 'curative wars' are not the answer to anything, and the true anti-war position involves understanding and then undoing the root causes of such conflicts, for which 'humanitarian wars' are only some worthless band-aid offered as a solution. These so called 'solutions' don't even come close to targeting the problem, since such wars are a permanently entrenched feature of the 'free market' economic system, which fosters gross inequality and irrational planning and distribution of resources, leading repeatedly to such catastrophes as depressions and fueling endless rivalries which are so often disguised as 'ethnic conflicts' or in the case of Iraq, 'wars against tyranny'. It is a feature of free market wars that they are never allowed to be presented to the public for what they really are, but rather are kept heavily disguised by propaganda specifically designed to divert attention from underlying root causes.
As for why humanitarian wars were launched in Kosovo and Iraq, but not in other equally deserving places such as Rwanda, the answer is simply oil, since the Caucasus region cannot be allowed to become 'unstable' since it has the greatest untapped reserves of petroleum in the world. Following the Kosovo war, which placed the U.S. military on the eastern edge of the Caucasus, and the Afghan war which led to the establishment of military bases in the northern regions of the Caucasus (made up of such sources of untapped petroleum as Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan), and following the Iraq war which occupied the southern corner of the strategic Caspian sea region, only Iran now needs to be conquered and occupied to completely encircle and occupy this strategically important oil region, ensuring American hegemony over vital petroleum resources (during the age of climate change and rapidly advancing global warming, something not included in their policy calculations). As Dick Cheney said to oil industry executives, in 1998, "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."
"Now go pray to your false god and your false politicians"
Geez...
You are truly one ignorant f**k...
SL
"I'm sure you agree"
How bout this folly...
Why don't ya try to help this other dumb@ss with a request of mine:
Posted by: silntlucidity
In reply to: tinner who wrote msg# 288256
"we will all miss your wonderful posts about your hero Yogi"
How bout you bringing up one of these/those post tinman...ch*t, I'll even start you off...
"When you stop running away come on back."
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
8/26/2007 10:26:14 PM
"What a work of art you are"
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
7/28/2007 9:59:53 AM
"HUH! I don't hear you!"
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
6/17/2007 10:10:06 PM
"WHY O' WHY NOW"
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
5/24/2007 8:52:12 PM
The treason of the liberals
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
5/15/2007 10:02:04 PM
Friday, May 11, 2007
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
5/15/2007 9:34:31 PM
THE RISE OF A LIBERAL ARISTOCRACY AND THE
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
5/10/2007 9:32:57 PM
"It's on Zeev. He allows this crap."
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
5/4/2007 2:23:29 PM
"In their urge toward self-worship, the artists of
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
4/30/2007 10:14:48 PM
The inconvenient Serbs...by Spengler
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
4/17/2007 10:53:46 PM
"good ole DEEP SOUTH"
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
4/9/2007 10:13:13 PM
the topic was/is...
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
4/1/2007 4:44:07 PM
"...put future generations at risk both physically and finan
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
3/25/2007 6:20:09 PM
"It’s clear that Clark included as legitimate targets
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
3/11/2007 9:23:17 PM
Spengler
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
2/12/2007 9:31:43 PM
Bissama Allah, oria alard Hitler
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
1/10/2007 8:59:53 PM
"Al-Husayni" Few are aware of that name/person.
Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)
1/7/2007 2:55:57 PM
"Dream on if you can get your head out"
LOL tinman...Me thinks that you are jusssssssssssst smart enough to know not to sh*t in your pants.
And before I "run"....
Murtha shows appetite for pork
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070905/NATION/109040070/1001
As always...enjoy...
SL
"There is always a need for intoxication: China has opium, Islam has hashish, the West has woman."~Andre Malraux
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.asp?msg=22378813
TOM CAMPBELL ET AL.
V.
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TOM CAMPBELL, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 2442 Rayburn House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515;
DENNIS KUCINICH, Member U.S. House of Representatives, 1730 Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515;
BOB BARR, Member, U.S. House of Representatives 1207 Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515;
ROSCOE BARTLETT, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 2412 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515;
DAN BURTON, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 2185 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515;
JOHN COOKSEY, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 317 Cannon House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515;
PHILIP CRANE, Member 233 Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515;
WALTER JONES, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515;
MARCY KAPTUR, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 2366 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515;
DONALD MANZULLO, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 409 Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515;
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 1707 Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515;
RON PAUL, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 203 Cannon House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515;
TOM PETRI, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 2462 Rayburn House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515;
MARSHALL SANFORD, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 1233 Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515;
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 127 Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515;
BOB SCHAFFER, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 212 Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515;
THOMAS TANCREDO, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 1123 Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515;
Plaintiffs,
- vs. -
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, President of the United States, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500, Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. In this action seventeen members of Congress seek declaratory relief declaring that the Defendant, the President of the United States, is unconstitutionally continuing an offensive military attack by United States Armed Forces against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia without obtaining a declaration of war or other explicit authority from the Congress of the United States as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, and despite Congress' decision not to authorize such action.
2. Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that a report pursuant to Section 1543(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution was required to be submitted on March 26, 1999, within 48 hours of the introduction into hostilities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of United States Armed Forces. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that, pursuant to Section 1544(b) of the Resolution, the President must terminate the use of United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia no later than sixty calendar days after March 26, 1999. The President must do so unless the Congress declares war or enacts other explicit authorization, or has extended the sixty day period, or the President determines that thirty additional days are necessary to safely withdraw United States Armed Forces from combat.
JURISDICTION
3. Jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, 1651, 2201-2202, and the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiffs are the seventeen Members of the U.S. House of Representatives whose names appear in the caption of this Complaint. Plaintiffs file this suit in their official capacities as Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
5. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton is President of the United States. Defendant is sued in his official capacity as President.
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
6. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war and issue letters of marque and reprisal.
WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
7. Pursuant to Section 1543(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the President is required to submit a written report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate within 48 hours of the introduction into hostilities of United States Armed Forces. Within sixty days of the date that report is submitted or required to be submitted, the President, pursuant to Section 1544(b), shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces unless Congress has declared war, has enacted a specific authorization for such use of force or otherwise extended the sixty day period, except that the President can extend the time period for thirty days, if necessary to safely withdraw United States Armed Forces from combat.
FACTS
8. On March 24, 1999, United States Armed Forces at the direction of the Defendant began massive air strikes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
9. On March 26, 1999, the President submitted a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate stating that United States Armed Forces began a series of air strikes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In the report the President states that he is "providing this report as part of any efforts to keep Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution." The report states that to "limit his [Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic's] ability to make war . . . . United States and NATO forces have targeted the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia government's integrated air defense systems, military and security police command and control elements, and military and security police facilities and infrastructure. United States naval ships and aircraft and U.S. Air Force aircraft are participating in these operations."
0. Administration officials have stated that a substantial and sustained air campaign is ongoing against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
11. Between March 24, 1999, and April 28, 1999, United States and allied aircraft flew over 11,500 sorties over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, an average of approximately 350 sorties per day. During the same period, the United States and allied aircraft launched over 4,400 confirmed air strikes on Yugoslavia territory, an average of over 100 per day. United States Armed Forces also launched over 180 cruise missiles against Yugoslavia during this time period. The United States has tens of thousands of military personnel involved in the military operations against Yugoslavia.
12. Administration officials state that it is likely that the current hostilities will be protracted. In testimony before Congress on April 21, 1999, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, referring to the hostilities against Yugoslavia, stated that "As the President and our military leaders have made clear, this struggle may be long." On April 29, 1999, President Clinton stated that the air attacks are likely to continue for many months.
13. To support an expansion of the U.S. air offensive over Yugoslavia, President Clinton authorized the Pentagon to summon as many as 33,102 reservists to active duty. Defendant's decision represented the largest activation of reservists since the 1991 Persian Gulf War against Iraq. This call up was in part necessary to increase the number of United States aircraft involved in the Yugoslav operation to almost 1,000.
14. United States officials have stated that the air attack against Yugoslavia will escalate in the coming weeks. U.S. General Wesley Clark, the NATO Commander, stated on April 27, 1999, that the air strikes thus far have "been only a fraction of what is to come."
15. On April 28, 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives decided not to authorize the President of the United States to conduct military air operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The House of Representatives defeated by a vote of 213 to 213 S. Con. Res. 21 which would have authorized such military operations.
16. On April 28, 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives, by a vote of 427 to 2 determined not to declare war by defeating H. J. Res. 44 which would have declared war against Yugoslavia.
17. The Plaintiffs are Democratic and Republican members of Congress who voted against S. Con. Res. 21 or H. J. Res. 44 of the 106th Congress.
IRREPARABLE INJURY
18. Plaintiffs have no adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the violations set forth herein. The President's initiation of an offensive military attack by the United States Armed Forces against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia without obtaining a declaration of war or other explicit authority of Congress, deprives plaintiffs of their constitutional right and duty under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, to commit this country to war, or to prevent, by refusing their assent, the committing of this country to war. It also completely nullifies their vote against authorizing military air operation and missile strikes against Yugoslavia.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
19. The continuing offensive air attacks against Yugoslavia and other military actions against Yugoslavia constitute substantial, sustained, continuous, and prolonged armed hostilities against a foreign state that required the authorization of Congress pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution.
20. Defendant's initiation of and continuation of an offensive military attack by United States forces against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, without obtaining a declaration of war or other explicit authorization from the Congress of the United States, violates Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution and deprived and continues to deprive the Plaintiffs of their constitutional right, opportunity, and duty to prevent, by refusing their assent, the entry of the United States into a war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
21. Defendant's continuation of an offensive military attack by United States forces against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, despite the vote of the House of Representatives on S. Con. Res. 21 explicitly refusing to authorize such action, violates Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. Defendant's action injures Plaintiffs in that it completely nullifies and overrides the Plaintiff legislators' votes which were sufficient to defeat the legislative act of authorization which the Constitution requires for the Defendant to lawfully undertake the above described military action.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
22. On March 24, 1999, United States Armed Forces were introduced into hostilities against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
23. On or before March 26, 1999, the President was required to submit a report pursuant to Section 1543(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution to Congress regarding the hostilities in Yugoslavia.
24. On May 25, 1999, the President is required, pursuant to Section 1544(b) of the War Powers Resolution, to terminate such hostilities unless Congress declares war or enacts other explicit authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, or has extended the sixty day period by law, or the President determines that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires their continued use of up to an additional thirty days in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
25. The Defendant has indicated that he intends to continue such hostilities against Yugoslavia for the indefinite future despite the failure of Congress to explicitly authorize such military action. The continuation of such military action violates the War Powers Resolution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter an Order as follows: (a) declaring that Defendant William Jefferson Clinton is unconstitutionally conducting an offensive military attack against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia without obtaining a declaration of war or other explicit authorization from Congress and despite Congress' decision not to authorize such action;
(b) declaring that as of March 26, 1999, President Clinton was required to submit a report pursuant to Section 1543(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution reporting on the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; further declaring that no later than May 25, 1999, the President must terminate the involvement of United States Armed Forces in such hostilities unless the Congress declares war, or enacts other explicit authorization, or has extended the sixty day period; or if the President has determined that thirty additional days are necessary to safely withdraw United States Armed Forces from combat -- declaring that no later than June 24, 1999, the President must terminate the involvement of U.S. Armed Forces in such hostilities;
(c) awarding Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d);
and (d) granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
JULES LOBEL
MICHAEL RATNER Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway -- 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 (212) 614-6464
______________________________
JAMES R. KLIMASKI Bar No. 243543 KLIMASKI & MILLER, P.C. 1899 L Street NW Suite 1250 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 296-5600
H. LEE HALTERMAN 405 14th Street Suite 1208 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 663-0936
JOEL STARR Bar No. 405645 2442 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2631 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
http://www.counterpunch.org/warlaw.html
"Tou wont be blaming the political disaster this country is facing on the libs."
Yes I am/I will/and will continue to do so...
Gotta go for now...try reading the/a article (for a change)...till later
SL
"The Libs want accountability"
You/them can start here:
The real cowboys
Liberals are in no position to complain about the degradation of international law. They started it.
Brendan O'Neill
April 25, 2006 3:17 PM
Philippe Sands makes me laugh - and not in a good way. For the past year or more he has been bashing Bush and Blair for their cowboyish disregard for international law, while willfully overlooking the fact that it was President Bill Clinton in the 90s, loudly supported by liberal academics and journalists, who started the assault on the UN charter.
On Comment is free today, Sands describes how Clement Attlee's government helped to establish international rules and regulations, and complains that the "present Labour government has done a great deal to undo this precious legacy and undermine the international rule of law".
This is an idiot's guide to international affairs. We are presented with gallant internationalists writing laws 60 years ago and self-serving Blairites ripping them up today.
What about the period in between? Reading Sands's super-reductionist history you could be forgiven for thinking that everything was hunky-dory during the cold war period of 1945 to 1990, when most governments paid lip service to international law.
In fact, there were numerous bloody wars, from Aden to Korea, Vietnam to Panama. The existence of pieces of paper declaring that all states were equal and all men had rights made not a jot of difference to the domination of the powerful over the less powerful.
Worse, Sands's story would make you think that international law survived the 90s intact and was only dismantled by big bad Bush and his nasty sidekick Blair post-9/11. Wrong. International law was undermined much earlier, by some of the very same people who bleat about Bush and Blair today.
In the 90s, "liberal humanitarians" said international law was an ass and demanded that it be scrapped. They called on western powers to rewrite or simply to ignore the UN charter, in order to facilitate interventions everywhere from Somalia to the Balkans to Kosovo.
It was a formidable consensus of both left and right, comprised of politicians, academics, journalists and NGO activists. And if you argued against this consensus promoting international intervention over sovereign equality, as I and others did, you could expect to be denounced as an appeaser, an apologist or even a fascist, as someone described me when I protested against the (illegal) bombing of Kosovo in 1999.
These "humanitarians" helped to create the lawless world in which Bush and Blair can treat the third world as a private shooting range.
For example, the Guardian today protests against the illegal war in Iraq. Yet it supported and justified Blair and Clinton's equally illegal Kosovo campaign six years ago. A leader criticised those who said the US and the UK should wait for proper backing from the UN, questioning the notion that the UN is "the only legitimate law-giver". The UN constitution is a "recipe for inaction", it said. "Its imprimatur cannot be the sole trigger for international action to right an obvious wrong."
Like Iraq 2003, the Kosovo campaign failed to win the unanimous support of the UN security council, forcing Blair and Clinton to rely on Nato instead. And, like Iraq, Kosovo was sold to us by a combination of fearmongering and bullshit: we were told that a "genocide" was taking place, a "new Holocaust".
After the war, the foreign affairs select committee determined that the Kosovo venture was "contrary to the specific terms of what might be termed the basic law of the international community: the UN charter".
The Observer stated its support for this illegal venture even more baldly. It admitted that the "legal authority for intervening in the affairs of a sovereign nation state is disputable" and "innocent blood is certain to be spilled", yet described the bombing as a "just war" to which there was "no alternative".
It seems that rules don't matter when you allegedly have right on your side. Funnily enough, this is the exact same argument made by Blair over Iraq today. "I might have broken the rules but, hey, I did the right thing."
Clare Short, former secretary of state for international development, resigned over the Iraq war and denounced it as illegal. Yet she was cheerleader-in-chief for Kosovo. She attacked "bleeding heart liberals" who opposed the Kosovo campaign, describing it as a "challenge for our generation". "We must do what is right, otherwise evil will triumph. Please be steady everyone," she said (note again that Blairite conviction that the war was "right" and its opponents therefore wrong).
The late Robin Cook also resigned over Iraq, complaining that we should have waited for UN authority. Yet he was happy to serve as foreign secretary during Kosovo without UN authority. He declared of Kosovo: "It is clear we have legal authority for action to prevent humanitarian catastrophe" - blatantly contradicting the foreign affairs select committee's judgment that the war was contrary to international law.
The entire "humanitarian era", from the end of the cold war through to today, has been premised on the idea that the old international laws are bad because they act as a barrier to intervening in trouble spots around the globe. In 1993 an adviser to Clinton spelt out the new approach to global affairs: "Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete. All states will recognise a single global authority ... "
The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, who today wrings his hands over the illegality of Bush and Blair's Iraqi venture, in the 90s wrote: "State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined by the forces of globalisation and international cooperation. Meanwhile, individual sovereignty has been enhanced by a renewed consciousness of the right of every individual to control his or her own destiny." This effectively dusted down and re-polished the idea of the White Man's Burden for the post-cold war world, legitimising western intervention in the name of protecting vulnerable individuals from their evil rulers.
Such explicit disdain for sovereign statehood, everywhere from newspaper offices to the academy to UN headquarters, represented a significant shift. From the publication of the UN charter in 1945, international relations were organised around the principle of formal sovereign equality between nation states, the idea that states should enjoy equal legal and political rights regardless of their military power, GDP, corrupt governments, or whatever.
There was often a gaping chasm, of course, between the theory and the practice; western powers often overrode states' "sovereign equality". Yet the UN charter sought to instil some order into world affairs in the aftermath of the second world war, by codifying the principle of non-intervention save in extreme circumstances.
The "humanitarians" blew that notion out of the water, making military intervention into the rule of international affairs rather than the exception - and they were cheered all the way by more than a few liberal commentators. The consequences were utterly dire: thousands were killed in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans and Iraq by these "caring" imperialists.
Should we really be surprised, then, when today a US cowboy and his British deputy sheriff launch an invasion of Iraq that doesn't play by the old rules? Ours does indeed look like a lawless world, but some liberals are not in a position to complain about it. They got what they asked for.
Let's not beat around the bush: today's instability is a product of their earlier narcissistic fantasies about being the saviours of mankind in the post-cold war era.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brendan_oneill/2006/04/who_are_the_real_cowboys_phili.html
SL
The Trance
Bush . . . Clinton . . . Bush . . . Clinton . . . Getting very sleepy . . .
PEGGY NOONAN
When I asked if his support was connected in any way to the idea of breaking away from the Bush-Clinton-Bush rotation, he said, "Above all, I believe this country needs change, and continuing the 20-year hold on the White House of the same two families is not my idea of change."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010691
SL
I was once told...
"If not for a woman, a man would never grow up"
I suppose some truth were in those/his words...
"Life is really really good."
:) good to hear!
SL