> Martin wrote:
> > It certainly does break down the military, and eliminating the air
> > threat is the standard first step. Ground forces cannot go in until
> > the air force is eliminated as a threat.
>
> What ground forces? My understanding is that the US Congress is not
> going to allow US troops to fight. I don't know of any other countries
> that want to send ground troops in there.
Of course not. Nobody wants to send in troops, especially when, at
the moment, it would be foolish. But if the bombing successfully
minimizes the threat from the Serb military, and if the remaining
threat is acceptable, and if, in the meantime, Milosevic doesn't agree
at least to pulling all his remaining forces out of Kosovo and having
UN forces occupy Kosovo while a political settlment is negotiated, but
instead he continues with his program of eliminating Albanians, *then*
NATO will have to send in troops.
> I agree with alister in that the air strikes cannot prevent Milosovic
> from continuing with the atrocities. The atrocities seem to be
> committed by Serb soldiers with small arms, not by Serb tanks and other
> military hardware.
I agree. the air strikes are not meant to prevent Milosevic from
committing atrocities. They are meant to minimize the threat from his
military to taking further action. That is what they are really meant
for, because that is the only thing they can accomplish. It doesn't
matter what Clinton or Blair or any of the pundits say about
humanitarian intervention. That's just a way to manufacture consent
and provide a plausible justification for violating the UN charter and
international law.
> We can rip apart Milosovic's large scale war machine, but as long as he
> has soldiers who will fight for him the atrocities will continue. In
> order to force the soldiers to stop killing ethnic Albanians, you need
> to send in ground troops and kick out the Serbs--but so far NATO is only
> committed to airstrikes.
I agree. And I imagine the NATO commander would not tell the world
NATO is bombing Yugoslavia to make it possible to send in ground
troops. They don't have to be committed to sending ground troops, but
to be in a position to do so, the threat from the Serb military must
be made acceptably low.
> The strikes can possibly weaken their moral to the point where they
> capitulate, but that is not a tangible miliary goal, it is a
> pyschological goal. No one knows how far Milosovic will go and how many
> will die until he caves.
I agree. If the Russians can get him to agree to the minimum
requirments, I'm sure NATO will be relieved to stop the bombing and
never mention sending in troops. I suspect the Russians will succeed,
and I suspect it will be due in part to their need to get more loans
from the the IMF that they will apply some behind the curtain
pressure. I hope they succeed.
> Meantime, the airstrikes seem to be provoking even greater atrocities on
> the part of Milosovic. There are now reports of genocide.
This provoking idea seems silly to me. I mean it places the Serbs in
the position of heathens, which they are not. They are intelligent
people, and I don't believe for a minute that they think they can stop
the bombing by increasing the very atrocities that NATO is using to
manufacture the consent required to carry on with the bombing. It
doesn't make sense. It does make sense that they have stepped up the
process because they know they are running out of time.
> These bombings seem like another bad decision on the part of Clinton. He
> continues his "bomb first, ask questions later" policy. The strikes
> lack clear, attainable objectives and don't seem to have any limit. Thus
> the situation could very well become worse.
It is a military action and its purpose is purely military, namely to
knock out as much of the military machine as possible.
martin
Martin Smith Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
|
