-Caveat Lector-
>From TheIndependent (UK)
War in The Balkans - The ghosts of failures past that stop America
putting her sons at risk
By Andrew Marshall in Washington
Like police officers moving spectators away from a nasty accident,
spin-doctors and officials in both Britain and the US were shooing
reporters away from the idea of a transatlantic split yesterday -
"Nothing to see here; move along".
Yet the ringing endorsements of Nato solidarity yesterday from Tony
Blair and Robin Cook cannot hide a growing and disturbing fact:
Washington and London risk putting themselves on a collision course
over the question of sending infantry into Kosovo.
The squabble could end up making life all the worse for hundreds of thousands of
refugees still at the mercy of the Serbs inside Kosovo and being used as human shields
as Nato steps up its bombing campaign.
The spat is all the more surprising because of the hitherto very close ties between
Downing Street and the White House, celebrated in daily telephone calls, policy
seminars and familial closeness between "Tony" and "Bill"
. But no amount of "Third Way weekends" can hide the differences.
Neither London nor Washington wants a full-scale invasion, and neither wants to end
the air war. But some officials in Britain believe that threatening to push harder on
the ground would make it possible to ease up in the
air and reduce the civilian casualties that are mounting daily. America does not.
Britain wants to accelerate planning. America does not.
Nor is it a row over substance, officials on both sides underline, but presentation -
so far. Yet as a consequence of its persistence and moral fervour, Britain is in
danger of creating a serious argument. In the view of
some in Washington, Britain has repeatedly tried to steer the United States towards a
more aggressive land strategy for the war. America will not allow its forces to be put
in Kosovo except as part of a peace-keeping forc
e, or be railroaded into making commitments until it is ready.
The disagreement goes back to Tony Blair's evening visit to the White House before the
Nato summit last month, when he and his weary officials clustered into the Oval Office
to put their case after a transatlantic flight.
But Mr Clinton deferred repeatedly to Sandy Berger, his hard-nosed National Security
Adviser, and Mr Berger would not budge.
Everyone is agreed that if and when a deal is signed with Belgrade, ground forces -
under Nato command, but with a United Nations cover - would enter Kosovo and return
the refugees. More troops would be needed than origin
ally thought - perhaps 50-60,000, with perhaps 10-15,000 of them Americans. Planning
for this force is under way. But Britain is pushing for early decisions, before there
is a deal, and before it is clear under what condi
tions a force would enter Kosovo.
The difference between Washington and London is one of tone, strategy and motivation.
There is broad support for the war in Britain, so Mr Blair and Mr Cook can afford to
be more bellicose. They also seem to believe that
pushing Belgrade harder - by hinting at a willingness to put in infantry - will cut
short the air war. And they see the war as a moral issue.
The US believes that the bombing, now up to 700 sorties a day, is working; that it
will press Slobodan Milosevic to a deal in the next few weeks; and that raising any
alternatives will confuse the diplomacy, split Nato an
d undermine domestic support for the campaign. In America, the war is characterised as
not just about moral issues but also a pragmatic conflict involving issues of national
and international interest.
US policy has emerged from three competing interests, and it attempts to balance them
all. First, there is the strong moral case for intervention put by Madeleine Albright,
Mr Clinton's Secretary of State and herself a re
fugee from genocide. Second, there are the pragmatic arguments of White House staff
against a ground war, and to limit the possibility of US casualties. Third, there is
the military case against a ground war but in favour
of aggressive air strikes - as aggressive as possible. This is the strategy pursued
by General Wesley Clark, Nato's Supreme Commander in Europe.
It is not just still-raw memories of Vietnam or political cowardice that militates
against the aggressive use of ground forces to win the war. The Pentagon is not keen,
for a start: the army generals do not believe that i
nvasion would work, except with massive force in an operation that is almost
impossible to imagine. Diplomatically, Washington knows that at least three Nato
governments would probably collapse if it tried to push the war
on in this way. It has already antagonised Moscow almost beyond the point of no
return.
Militarily, the ghost of Bosnia still stalks the corridors in Washington and London.
Then, America pushed for air strikes while the Conservatives put British forces on the
ground as part of a UN force. As far as the Ameri
cans are concerned, that proved ground forces could simply become hostages to fortune.
There is no constituency in Washington for a land war, or even the aggressive use of
US forces on the ground. Most Americans would no more willingly see their sons die in
Kosovo than Britons would allow theirs to die in R
wanda. Congress is irretrievably split, unable in recent votes to back the current
strategy, escalation or an end to the war. It will be a hard fight for Mr Clinton to
get permission from Congress even for a peace-keeping
force.
Americans do not necessarily see Mr Blair's crusade as a heroic struggle for good.
Many think he is arguing for Americans to be killed in a war that is not theirs.
Unlike Mr Blair, Mr Clinton has to listen to the oppositi
on: they control the purse strings and the right to declare war.
Sending Mr Cook to Washington is an opportunity to ease the disagreements. The
long-planned trip will be used to present a united face as often as possible, and
efforts were under way to arrange joint appearances with Ms
Albright to show there is no divide.
There are key decisions to be made in the next month, leading up to the crucial G8
summit of the West and Russia on June 18-20. Nato has started planning for the
peace-keeping force in Kosovo, and commitments will soon be
needed from the US for a new and larger force. Britain wants a
substantial US presence, but there is a strong argument in the US
that the force should be largely European.
There are also discussions on how to handle Kosovo's political
future. There is an emerging view in Washington that Mr Milosevic
must be given some latitude to help him to back down; and there is a
continuing view in the White House that ultimately, only he can do
the deal that will end the war.
Britain has sometimes seemed to lean more in the direction of
removing Mr Milosevic. If the current row is not rapidly smoothed
over, it risks making these differences all the harder to bridge.
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
