"Retired Army Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said Thursday that NATO now must march to Belgrade. 'It is imperative that we go on to a ground invasion of Serbia -- not just Kosovo,'' Odom said. "'NATO troops should be prepared to stay in Yugoslavia to secure peace until the current generation of Serb leaders and their hostilities die of old age,' he said." The "innocent*-American-servicemen-taken-prisoner" ploy is working much better, and getting faster results, than the four conflicting "human angle" stories spun by George Bush for mass-media delivery that "justified" the US invasion of Panama.. Was "Saving Private Ryan" (from Spielberg?) another media project to "prime" us? __________ * The Pentagon is "investigating" exactly WHERE they were when captured -- leading us to believe they may have "innocently" strayed into KOSOVO, Serb territory -- while silent about the fact that their position was SATELLITE-MONITORED, hence KNOWN. Oh well, maybe the truth will come out at the trial in "state-controlled-media" Serbia ... NATO Ground Campaign Being Examined By DAVID BRISCOE .c The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The capture of three U.S. soldiers provides a stark example of the risks of a ground war in Yugoslavia, but some members of Congress and foreign policy analysts see that as the only way for NATO to prevail against Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. President Clinton continues to rule out any tactic involving troops, either to take the besieged Kosovo province or to march on Belgrade to bring down Milosevic. But both ideas are suggested by former officials and military experts as Washington reacts to NATO setbacks in the battle. Clinton sold Congress on U.S. participation in the NATO attack by committing to airstrikes alone, followed by troops only to uphold a hoped-for peace agreement between Kosovo's ethnic Albanians and Milosevic's government. But critics say that while Clinton stressed the risks of any campaign, he did not prepare Americans for the extent of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo that would occur even under NATO bombardment or for the risks posed by NATO attacks on democratic-leaning Montenegro, which is part of Yugoslavia. A ground war poses domestic dangers that make it politically more difficult for a president to commit troops. Military strategists point out that in Yugoslavia it would increase the likelihood of casualties as it brings the war to rough terrain known well by Serb fighters. ``The idea that it could be more than these three, that you could have dozens captured or killed ... could increase political pressure for ground intervention,'' says Michael O'Hanlon, foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution. ``It could also go the other way,'' he said. ``It raises the possibility that people will say this reminds us of how bad things could get.'' Any new course by Clinton likely would be better than current strategy, O'Hanlon said, echoing widespread discontent among defense and foreign policy analysts with the president's handling of the crisis. Clinton admitted in a CBS-TV interview Wednesday that his chief concern in sending in ground troops would be ``the prospect of never being able to get them out.'' Clinton sent U.S. peacekeeping forces into neighboring Bosnia in late 1995, promising to pull them out in a year. But a third of the contingent, more than 6,200 Americans, remains. In any scenario for winning the Balkan conflict, analysts say, ground troops provide the only way to secure areas now occupied by Serb forces and would be needed to protect Kosovar civilians if they are to be returned to their homes. They also would provide a necessary part of any post-bombing strategy that aims to oust Milosevic by force -- a goal proponents of an all-out campaign say probably is now necessary. Retired Army Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said Thursday that NATO now must march to Belgrade. He added that an exit strategy should never govern a victory plan for war. ``We face the imperative of a ground invasion of Serbia -- not just Kosovo,'' Odom said. NATO troops should be prepared, if necessary, to stay in Yugoslavia to secure peace until the current generation of Serb leaders and their hostilities die of old age, he said. Congress remains divided over the NATO action and for the advisability of a ground attack. Two New York Democrats in the House joined the call for ground troops Thursday. Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Eliot Engle urged immediate deployment of a NATO force to occupy Kosovo and protect ethnic Albanians. ``It is now clear, and the Defense Department has admitted, that the use of air power alone cannot and will not prevent these atrocities,'' they said in a joint statement. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said use of troops is not warranted until NATO sets clear goals for their use, the threat from Yugoslav armored units is ``significantly reduced,'' and there is more aggressive bombing of Serb infrastructure. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who helped push through a Senate vote supporting NATO, said Wednesday on the ``NewsHour With Jim Lehrer'' a ground assault would take several weeks to organize and that NATO should stick to the air campaign. ``Now, of course hindsight may be that you should not have abandoned any option in the beginning, put all options in place and then determine whether or not to use them,'' he said. But now, he said, ``Let's see it through, stick to it.''
