« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Maybe Wes Clark Was Right

and no, this is not a joke

By: streiff (Diary)  |  August 11th, 2008 at 08:17 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

We all know the story well because we flogged Wes Clark with it in 2004. June 12, 1999. Priština International Airport.

Details of Russia’s surprise occupation of Pristina airport at the end of the Kosovo war are revealed in a new BBC documentary on the conflict.

For the first time, the key players in the tense confrontation between Nato and Russian troops talk about the stand-off which jeopardised the entire peacekeeping mission…

General Wesley Clark, Nato’s supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport. …

But General Clark’s plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For’s British commander.

“I’m not going to start the Third World War for you,” he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ”We were [looking at] a possibility….of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.”

Seeing the behavior of Russia towards every state which borders it, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that Russia learned on that June day nearly a decade ago that it could as it damned well pleased and the West would foul itself of the thought of action.

Our, to date, craven behavior in addressing Russian violation of Georgia’s territorial integrity and the reckless targeting of civilians in Georgia bodes ill for our strategy of pushing democratic values eastward into the former Soviet Union. Why would Ukraine or the Baltic States resist Russian pressure when they know, based on this, that Russia is perfectly capable of creating thousands of ersatz “citizens” and rolling tanks to protect their whims while the West stands by sucking its collective thumb? I certainly wouldn’t recommend that course of action to them.

Instead nearly ten years ago we had the chance to apply a newspaper to Putin’s nose in very low risk and easily manageable situation. There were a handful of Russians, a lot of us, they were a long way from home and the odds of them fighting were virtually nil. We elected not to do so. Now Georgia, and in the near future other Western leaning nations in that region, will pay a heavy price.

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • jonlester

    There were still compelling reasons at the time to choose a more accommodating tact. I don’t know how much we can believe the reports of churches burned and the establishment of an “Osama bin Laden” mosque, but there are Kosovar Serbs still living in shipping containers at refugee camps. Kosovo was a mess that certainly didn’t need to be further complicated.

  • blackhedd

    n/t

  • Skanderbeg

    Instead nearly ten years ago we had the chance to apply a newspaper to Putin’s nose in very low risk and easily manageable situation.

    Actually…. Putin wasn’t on the scene then. Boris Yeltsin was President, Putin didn’t become acting President until 31 December (appointed by Yeltsin) and then was elected to the office the following spring.

  • bobnivik

    the Info-tainers talk at the time about Russia marching all the way through Ukraine(then still ruled by pro-Russians, incidentally) and Romania to reinforce the airport.

    It’s all speculation.

  • dbecraft

    Just put him into a paper bag…no change that he will ever get out!

  • gamecock

    and as I recall Clark threatened to bomb the Russians, which would have been quite mad.

    I think Russia learned the lesson they acted upon here when they were children playing bullies or being bullied: no deterrance

    Hence, they aren’t in Poland where US troops are not so far away. This place is easy, is oil pipeline country and they see the US vulnerable due to desm that won’t drill.

    more later

  • mbecker908

    “non-Western” nations understand and respect one thing: credible willingness to use force. The key word being: credible.

    Overall, I would say the US has little in the way of credibility on that account, Iraq aside.

    We finally got around to committing military force in Iraq, after years of ignoring both Saddam and aQ and the Administration has dithered over use of force to the point where, politically, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to commit troops anywhere again on any sort of scale.

    The hand wringing Carteresque response from GWB today combined with pretty much everything Rice has done at State would lend credence to the idea that we won’t do squat and can very safely be ignored.

    • gamecock

      And maybe Wes Clark should have bombed russian troops allied with us in Kosovo/Serbia/Bosnia?

      A lesson learned 9 years ago they waited to act upon today?

      After Bush invades 2 nations?

      non sequitur bds attack alert

  • JSobieski

    and are a much larger country than Georgia. Russia would have far more difficulty doing to the Ukraine what it is doing to Georgia.

    That being said, we need to see some leadership here.

    That looking into Putin’s eyes statements seems really Obama-like now.

    As a person of Polish blood, I realize that I am more “attune” to the danger of Russia. But it is time to wake up and decide how much “the West” means to us and what we are willing to do in order to preserve Western democracies with all of the good that they entail.

    Why spend billions installing democracies in places that are lukewarm on the concept if we won’t assist those who fully embrace such concepts?

    • JSobieski

      heck, supplying ground to air rockets will result in a lot of downed airplanes.

      That is how Afghanistan ended up. Its what they hoped to do to us in Iraq.

  • gamecock

    have a credible threat of force on every border of Russia? For all democracies? All points on Earth?

    Should we reinstitute MAD tomorrow as respects the State of Maine, Tbilisi, Ukraine?

    And can you not give the president some time before vomiting all over yourself in schadenfreude glee much like the far left that seeks to blame all that happens bad in the world on the US or that we “allow” bad to happen.

    How ’bout all the places Russia, al qaeda, saddam, Iran, China, et al haven’t invaded?

    That’s to Bush’s credit? right!

    • streiff

      at least on my Ukraine is not particularly close to Kosovo

      • Justin_Case

        is more an indictment of the American people’s willingness to commit forces in a brand new engagement.

        I don’t speak for Mr. Becker, but the key word in the Becker quote below is “politically”.

        the Administration has dithered over use of force to the point where, politically, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to commit troops anywhere again on any sort of scale.

        The Carter comparison is quite accurate if your memory serves you well.
        At the time of the Iranian hostage crisis the least desirable of avenues was armed confrontation (committing troops) with the Iranians – the reason being that the American public was still weary from our involvement in Vietnam. Carter gets a lot of blame for allowing the Islamic Revolution to take hold, but I see his unwillingness to use a credible threat of force more as a reflection of the mood of the US electorate at that time.

        I take exception with your “schadenfreude” comment. I have read enough of Mr. Becker’s comments to know that he shares my frustration with the Bush Administration’s inability to properly articulate our accomplishments in Iraq and our reasons for fighting there. To have successfully done so could possibly have served to deter the Russians who have an accurate gauge on the American mood.

        • streiff

          but Yeltsin was much less likely than Putin to contrive a military conflict with the West so I think the point remains.

          • streiff

            s I recall Clark threatened to bomb the Russians, which would have been quite mad

            If you can find a reputable source for this rather exotic recollection I’d like to see it.

          • streiff

            coherence is a valuable tool in debate. You’re managing to set new low levels of incoherence here.

          • gamecock

            My point is that it is not logical to blame America for what Putin did. Putin saw Bush act in Afghanistan and Iraq and yemen and many other nations.

            We can’t pre-empt all bad actions. We will respond appropriatley.

            patience

            fair?

          • gamecock

            Some people blame all bad acts on the US, yet never give credit for all the deterred bad acts, and with Bush, the latter are legion.

          • gamecock

            it and I have heard it discussed many times over the years. google

          • streiff

            don’t know what more to tell you. Clark never recommended bombing the Russians.

            Bush and Cheney planned 9/11. Google.

          • gamecock

            in Bosnia? It was 1999. There is no analogy to this Georgia situation, except that they can claim some sort of warped moral equivalence since Serbia/Kosovo etc were not in NATO and that we were a party to a nation-state being split up.

            I see no way that Russia is mislead by 1999 or Bush since. Russia knows that there are all kinds of places they can invade and that we would not attack them.

            They have calculated they are willing to accept the non-military consequences.

            But how you deter all such actions? none

            We deter an awful lot, esp since Bush has won two wars and is winning the insurgency war as well thanks to his staying the course until a surge could work.

            To blame Bush or even 1999, is, it seems to me, to engage in a version of

            Blame America First.

            no?

          • gamecock

            I wasn’t in Bosnia. All I can go on is what is reported. Who are your sources? You claim Clark was right to have wanted to “take action” against the Russians. Bombing is action. He wanted to move the Russians.

            man, I’m not going back and do all the research on a 1999 matter that is not analogous. But I can’t count the major network talk shows, etc that people cite that Clark was fired for threatening to bomb the russians.

            you ought to look it up

          • gamecock

            as is the west.

            This is a new act of aggression that i don’t think it is fair to blame on the US.

            What is fair is to expect strong action going forward based on this act.

            Pat Buchanan has been saying that we have provoked Russia by getting all these eastern euro nations in NATO.

            I disagree but I could be wrong.

            I know I am not wrong to think that it is not fair to say that anything short of manacle actions could deter this Russian action and all other bad acts around the world.

            We have deterred a lot. Remember the 90s? the late 70s? Can you imagine if a carter or Clinton was in office?

          • streiff

            there is a difference between an invited guest to a party and a gate crasher. Yep, they both end up at the party but they aren’t really the same thing. Having been alive and lucid during the time in question I’d just point you towards this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KosovoWar#YugoslavwithdrawalandentryofKFOR as a primer on how the Russians got into Kosovo.

            The remainder of this is nonsense.

            This was a NATO show, not an American show. And I’m sure “Blame America First” is a killer debate technique when you’re face down on the linoleum but really, GC, read before commenting and if big concepts like NATO confuse you just ask someone what they mean.

  • aaronbg

    We could have taken the airport with little confrontation. I know for a fact that we had SF and Seals watching every move the Russians made, we even beat them to Pristina. We could have claimed it but the Russians had planes hidden in the mountain to the west of the airport, so politically it would have caused a firestorm. I have no clue what the right thing to do would have been at the time, but my gut tells me we should have never allowed them (the Russians) to control the airport in Pristina. But the biggest blunder of all was ceding control of the entire K-For mission to the French. Anyhow this is all anecdote and opinion so take it for what it’s worth.

  • olderthangandalf

    It’s a long way to Georgia for us, and a step for Russia. They have internal supply lines; we are dependent on sea and airlift.

    As a result, so long as Russia remains a moderately powerful military state, this is not a military engagement we would take on lightly, and they – and the Georgians – have known that all along. Even when the Georgians were dancing in the streets for George W, the thinking ones knew very well that if Russia invaded they were unlikely to be met at the border with NATO troops.

    What is interesting, and new, is that Russia seems not to care about the diplomatic fallout of what they are doing. In part, that’s probably because they believe they’ve found a credible and defensible pretext for what they’ve wanted to do all along. To the extent it reflects a lessened concern about American and NATO ability or willingness to respond in ways other than on the ground fighting, it’s a bigger problem.

    On the diplomatic front, it’s not, in my opinion, ultimately about the US. It’s about northern Europe being dependent on Russian oil and Russian natural gas. Putin probably feels – and probably rightly feels – that Germany will block any action against Russia that imperils that could lead to the pipelines being turned off.

    • gamecock

      argument that Russia learned a lesson in 1999 that prompted their actions last week.

      I’ll write a blog on what i see as a blame America firstism or blame bushism, and to imagaine that anything less than the presence of American troops on or near a NATO ally would have deterred this action.

      • Swamp_Yankee

        The Yugo/Bosnian/Serbian/Kosovo strifes were all different. Russia always defended the interests of the Serbs.

        I think the analogy the Russians are using is this.

        Kosovo was part of the territorial sovreign Serbian state even after the partitioning of Yugoslavia and then Bosnia Herzogovia. Kosovo had a seperatist movement within the sovreign Serbian territory. NATO used the argument of war crimes and ethnic cleansing to bomb the sovreign state of Serbia and keep “peacekeepers” in Serbia.

        Russia was royally pissed off by the whole Serbian/Kosovo conflict, not so much the preceding rifts for a variety of reasons. Mainly, they were left out of the negotiations and Russian people identify with the Serbians.

        Now, Putin is trying to throw that in our faces and used the same logic we used in Sebia as a pretext. They have set their propaganda machines to assert that the Georian President is a war criminal and that S. Osettia is enduring a humanitarian crisis and ethnic cleasing. They even called their guys “peacekeepers”. This Serb/Kosovo conflict is the precedent for invading a sovreign nation for humanitarian purposes.

        Of course its a joke and Russia has been trying to undermine the Georian government ever since its independence in 1991 and particularly after the Rose Revolution

        • mbecker908

          blame America first because of BDS under it. And you’ve become very adept at rolling them over.

          The vast majority of your comments in this thread are utterly over the top, totally off topic and pointless.

          Nowhere did I “blame America” or even “blame Bush” for the Russians rolling into Georgia. Nowhere have I advocated bombing Moscow or declaring war on the Russians.

          What I’ve point out is:

          1. Because of GWBs utterly feckless performance over the last five years at defending the war in Iraq – which you’ll recall I’ve unwaveringly supported from well before day one – he has allowed the Democrats to make the use of force a virtual non-starter anywhere in the world and for just about any reason. I happen to be much more concerned about our probable inability to strike Iran than I am about the Russians in Georgia, but the Russians have to be able to figure out that we aren’t about to ANYTHING to stop them or slow them down. Except maybe call for a meeting with the Euroweenies and have a third rate “diplomat” make a speech at the UN.

          Again, it’s not OUR fault the Russians are in Georgia. OTOH, our total lack of credibility when it comes to the use of force could well have been a consideration in their decision. Don’t you find it interesting that GWB waited several days to finally say something and when he did get around to it, it was a statement worth of Carter or Obama. Nary a word was said that could cause the Russians to think we might DO anything.

          Upthread you asked if we should have a warplan for every eventuality and a credible threat for every corner of the earth. Generally speaking, yes we should. And especially where the Russians are concerned. GC, that’s what warplanners do. We pay them to develop plans for things like the Russians invading their neighbors. Streiff knows more about this stuff than I’ll ever know (or want to for that matter) and can probably elaborate.

          I’m finding no joy whatsoever in this mess. But I am finding that we have no leadership coming from the WH on this or a laundry list of other subjects. It’s interesting that McCain was first out of the block and addressed the Russians in a direct way. I was very pleased with his response, it was a breath of fresh air.

          GC, you’ve got a problem. You need to come to terms with the fact that GWB has offered the country and the Party exactly zero in terms of real leadership. He’s been bunkered down since the 06 election and before that he was just mostly in hiding. That said, he’s not responsible for the Russians invading Georgia. But he’s not a player in the situation either.

          • bobnivik

            All I was noting was that Ukraine and Romania were on the way to Kosovo, should a LAND route be needed by Russia.

            I respect your military affairs writing, really, and assume your’re just on edge from dueling with GC downthread.

          • bs
          • mbecker908

            looks like, check this out…

            You’ve seen enough of my writing to know I’m no friend of John McCain. Heck, I’ve lived in Arizona for nearly 20 years and I’ve never voted for the guy. I still have major issues with him on lots of stuff, but when he says things like this and when he takes on Obama directly the way he has in his last few commercials, I have some hope.

            Contrast McCain’s response with that of President Bush. Hint: there is no comparison. As John Hinderacker said in his article at Powerline…

            It has been an extraordinary moment, in which John McCain has seemed almost more the leader of the free world than the President. You can be sure that in November, Saakashvili and Vladimir Putin will be following our election results with equal attention.

          • bs

            This is not the 908 I used to know… ;-)

          • mbecker908

            When we’re a long way from actually having to make a decision and take action (as in voting), I think and act on my own. As time draws neigh to actually do something I consult with my mentor. And Franz told me I need to get real and take the best deal we can get. Hence my positive outlook on McCain.

          • gamecock

            winning the war while bunkered down

            cool

          • gamecock

            Bush ain’t in the top 5000

            mccain did well
            bush, in the game till 1-21-09

          • gamecock

            on Russia, I will denounce same. I think this is critical. But its not critical that the policy be pushed now or yesterday or w/i 36 hours. It was 13 days before the Berlin airlift.

            Beck, how hard would you be? Just the G8 expulsion? Ukraine in now and US tanks?

          • JSobieski

            leadership is not the same thing as blaming Bush. To be honest, alot of my criticisms on the Georgia issue are rhetorical. I just wanted immediate and strongly worded line drawing, a stated solidarity with the nation of Georgia, and some incremental responses.

            McCain has been better than Bush on this, although its easier to be tougher when people know you can’t order an invasion.

            GC, you know I have been critical of President Bush’s inability to engage in ideological warfare using the bully pulplit. This is simply another manifestation of that glaring weakness.

            Reagan rarely ordered the use of force, but he was plenty effective. I am frustrated that more people don’t learn about how the Cold War was won. There are many ways to apply leverage, but we seem unwilling to do so.

            Not sure what the underlying cause of the problem is, but the buck does stop with the President.

          • mbecker908

            Not in this life.

            The soldiers and Marines have carved out a victory over aQ and Iran in Iraq. Bush wasn’t much involved in that.

            The war he SHOULD have been fighting for the last five years is the one with the Democrats and the media. In that war, he surrendered about three years ago and made a pull-out from hostilities that was so fast our heads are still spinning. He’s done absolutely nothing but hunker down, offer absolutely no leadership, wage a battle of attrition to get funding for the military, offer no defense of General Petraeus when the Dems were attempting to roll him (thank God hes a better man than GWB), and sit by in silence as the Ds and the media declared that the war is lost (an opinion still shared by very large numbers of Americans) and that he took us to war on false pretenses.

            When all is said and done, if history records Iraq as a win for us, my bet is that GWB gets virtually none of the credit. And he deserves virtually none of the credit.

          • spainishirish

            If one stain in particular marks this Administration, it is the one you have noticed. Frankly, Bush and Obama are closer on Russian revanchism than many care to admit. This is McCain’s time to shine, and as someone who shares your view of the senator, I have been pleasantly surprised by his response so far. I don’t look for McCain to go silent on anything that involves naked aggression.

          • mbecker908

            Bush in the game until 1/21/09.

            We should be so lucky. He’s been on the sidelines making sure the water bucket doesn’t get tipped over for most of the last five years. I see no probability that will change in the next fiveish months.