Milutin wrote:
> > But the moment something occurs, that is a result of the refugees and
> > benefits NATO, then we will know.
>
> >I think you are right.  It is to NATO's advantage for the refugees to
> be out of the way.  It will make targeting easier for attack
> helicopters that will go in when weather permits, and it will make
> things easier on ground troops if they go in, because they won't have
> to be as concerned for public safety given that the public won't be
> there.
>
> I mean a political or, more likely, an economical reason.  One
> reason could be that NATO needed something to do.  No more Warsaw
> pack, so.......

I can't see that.  The only possibility along these lines that I can
see is that the US wants Europe to take over its own defense
completely.  Although it is an extremely cynical idea, the US might
have instigated the whole thing to make it clear that Europe must act.
But I don't think that is what happened, because the US could, and, I
think, will, simply announce that it will begin withdrawing forces
from Europe.  It has withdrawn forces before, so it doesn't need to
provoke a crisis to do it now.

I think we are seeing another example of government and NATO leaders
falling vicitm to their own DoubleThink.

1.  The NATO attack has not been justified.  A military attack cannot
be justified as a humanitarian action.

2.  The explanation for the NATO attack makes sense only if NATO is
prepared to do the whole job (with ground troops), but NATO is clearly
not prepared to do the whole job.

3.  NATO was clearly not prepared to handle the refugee flood.

At this point, my conclusion is that the situation is the result of
astonishing incompetence by the people who made the decision to launch
the attack.  I think a BBC newsreader said it best.  "It looks like
they are just making it up as they go along."

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