Tresy wrote:

> on 11/28/99 11:47 AM, Wat Tyler at [log in to unmask] wrote:

>> WASHINGTON -- Senator William V. Roth, Jr. (R-DE), Chairman of the Senate
>> NATO Observer Group, today delivered the following floor statement on the
>> lessons learned from Operation ALLIED FORCE and the Kosovo conflict:
>>
>> "Among NATO's first and foremost objectives in this war was to stop the
>> atrocities then being committed against Kosovar Albanians. Yet, in the
>> course of Operation ALLIED FORCE, Milosevic accelerated and expanded his
>> campaign of terror. Before the war was over, nearly 90% of Kosovar
>> Albanians were driven from their homes by Serbian para-military and
>> military forces. Nearly one half were actually expelled from Kosovo.
>>
>> "Moreover, no less than 10,000 Albanians were executed by Milosevic's
>> henchmen during the course of the NATO campaign. As we learn daily from
the
>> grim excavations of body-filled wells and mass graves, the actual figure
is
>> probably much, much higher. And then there were the countless rapes of
>> Albanian women, which for cultural reasons will unfortunately never be
>> fully reported -- all occurring during the course of Operation ALLIED
FORCE.

>I have no idea what Wat's stance on this is, but juxtaposing Sen. Roth's
>analysis with the ever-shifting bases espoused by the anti-war Left is
>instructive.

>On the one hand we have the argument that there were a lot of Serb
>atrocities--and that NATO caused them. This argument, bastard stepchild of
>Gareth Porter's argument that the US bombing of Cambodia was responsible
for
>the Khmer Rouge, was made during and immediately after the war by many on
>the Left as well, Alexander Cockburn among them.

>Since we will never know how many Kosovar Albanians the Serbs would have
>killed had NATO not intervened, this argument is immune from falsification,

Not quite.

NATO knew that its intervention would greatly increase Serb repression of
Kosovar Albanians.

"The threat of NATO bombing, predictably, led to a sharp escalation of
atrocities by the Serbian Army and paramilitaries, and to the departure of
international observers, which of course had the same effect. Commanding
General Wesley Clark declared that it was "entirely predictable" that
Serbian terror and violence would intensify after the NATO bombing, exactly
as happened."
[source: "The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric" By Noam Chomsky,
http://www.lbbs.org/current_bombings.htm]

        I requested (and received) the primary source for Gen. Clarke's
admission that NATO knew that their intervention would increase Serb
repression of Kosovar Albanians from this list, but have lost the reply in
which Clarke is quoted. Maybe some kind reader will supply it again?

        In addition to this, NATO knew and admitted that if Operation Allied
force continued exclusively as a bombing operation, then it could not
protect Kosovar Albanians. In other words NATO admitted that its strategy
could not achieve its stated objectives:

                "General Clark, yesterday General Naumann said that the
                NATO air attacks "can't stop the killings and roundings up"
I wondered              if you would agree with his assessment of the NATO
campaign, and if you            do agree, will NATO be planning to do
anything to aid these people on                 the ground?

            SACEUR: Well, first of all, we've always said from the
            outset that air power alone cannot stop paramilitary murder
            on the ground and that's what's going on down there."

[source: Press Conference by NATO Secretary General, Javier Solana
 and General Wesley K. Clark, SACEUR, NATO Press Release, NATO HQ,
 1-April-1999]

So, even though it is true that we will never know how many Kosovar
Albanians the Serbs would have killed had NATO not intervened,  we do know
that NATO admits that their intervention increased this number.

> On the other hand we have the revisionist argument that there were no, or
> very few Serb atrocities, and that NATO fabricated data to the contrary.
> This argument take the preceding argument and stands it on its head: to
the
> extent that the final body count is lower than feared, this is to NATO's
> discredit.

Not quite. NATO intervened on the basis that it was morally impelled to do
so
since the Serbs were committing Genocide. Since there is no proof of
Genocide, NATO's claims, and hence it reason for intervention, are shown to
be spurious.

Credible sources are estimating 12,000 Kosovar Albanian deaths, most of whom
died after the NATO intervention. This is a great tragedy but it is not
Genocide. Intervention was required, but a beefing up of the OCSE Kosovo
Verification Mission, which was effective in reducing casualities,  was far
better indicated than the nonsensical carpet bombing chosen by NATO.

> Heads I win, tails NATO loses. If the body count is high, it fails; if
it's
> low, it fails. Chalk up another victory for the language of Orwell.

Peace to you, Tresy.

Craig.