The Kosovo Cover-Up(Origin of the Wesley Clark Character Issue)

Newsweek ^ | May 15, 2000 | John Barry And Evan Thomas

[Bedford Forrest]

The mission in which they fancy themselves expert

That is to say, the provision of air superiority. First, as the Pacific war showed, the Nav and the Marines do not need the Air Farce to provide air superiority. Second, beginning with the end of WWII, the need to provide effective interdiction and close air support has eclipsed the air superiority requirement. The Air Farce has, quite simply, refused to accept this fact of life. Their miserable and in fact criminal performance in Kosovo bears this out. They have a severe case of cultural arrogance and they get away with it because they are past masters of stroking all of the right pimps in Congress.

[Pukin Dog]

If Cohen, Shelton and Clark were all telling the same lie,what are the integrity issues Shelton has with Clark?

Cohen and Shelton wanted the truth about ineffectiveness, so we could get the hell out of there. Clark gave them optimistic figures in order to continue the war. Had Clark told the truth, either we would have left, or we would have had ground troops. Clark lied so Clinton was never forced to make a hard decision.

[Pukin Dog]

Even with my historic bias, I don't subscribe to your opinion regarding the Air Force. They are the second most effective fighting force in the world. The fact that the Navy/Marines are the best, does not make the Air Force terrible.

[Pukin Dog]

Their miserable and in fact criminal performance in Kosovo bears this out.

The Air Force suffered in Kosovo from poor leadership and tactics (provided by the Army via Clark). I cannot say that had we been given their mission with our BombCats instead of the CAPs we flew, that we would have done much better from 15K ft. Also, the enemy had superb deceptive tactics against our mission. Clark was a fool. We followed orders regardless.

[Bedford Forrest]

I never said they were terrible. I merely said they should be disbanded. They have a longstanding institutional culture and it is irreparable. It goes back a long long time, in fact, long before the advent of military aviation. A recent case in point: An Army general is ordered to take down an incumbent regime in Afghanistan. Who goes in first, 400 miles from the beach? Who provides tactical and logistical air support, 400 miles from the beach, for 6-8 weeks while the Air Farce tacair is parked back in Kuwait, looking for landing rights and fuel dumps. You know the answer. [The Air Force bomber community did outstanding work from the gitgo. They are exempt from this reproach] This is the way it is - this is the way things are. Except for the bomber people, the Air Farce is institutionally lame, incompetent, ineffective, and criminally wasteful. Show me one specific example to the contrary, since Billy Mitchell was court martialed.

[JSteff]

"The program for so doing was a Chinese deal, and the embassy was targeted as a retaliation for their having made the program available."

Made available because of the IT secrets and hardware klinton "allowed" to fall into chinese hands.

[JSteff]

Not to mention that the air force has wanted to be completely rid of the A-10 since it came out. A-10 drivers were looked down on by the rest of the air force. They quickly made the A-10 primarily a reservist plane. Congress several times (if I recall correctly) forced the Air Force to buy more of them.

Yet it has consistently and verifiably been one of the most effective in support of our guys on the ground. During Iraq I they had something like 2100 confirmed kills... kills where the ground troops could walk up and stick their arms in the holes of the armor.

The US ignores the ground support roles, and the navy at our own peril. We need to remember, the Soviets were more immediately scared operationally of Reagans Navy than star wars despite what the techie types in the pentagon would like us to remember.

[elli1]

If Cohen, Shelton and Clark were all telling the same lie,what are the integrity issues Shelton has with Clark?

Exactly. Whatever the intergrity issues are, this ain't it.

[Pukin Dog]

Except for the bomber people, the Air Farce is institutionally lame, incompetent, ineffective, and criminally wasteful.

Sorry, I cant consider that a serious statement, so I will spare you many examples of excellent Air Force fighter-community work. In order to dispute your statement, it would be necessary to use a comparative example, where there really is none. While the Navy could (and arguably should) take over the role of the Air Force, the Air Force mission requires over-the-top spending on almost every level. Although I subscribe to the Col. Boyd philosophy, while the Air Force did not, they have accomplished much with a complexity vs. numbers argument. If anything, the Air Force is the most political of the services, and that fact shows in the promotion of yes-men over warriors too often than not.

[Pukin Dog]

While I love the A-10, I think it is only fair to present the other side of the argument that causes the Air Force to want to be rid of it.

As a ground-pounding CAS aircraft, there is none better. That effectiveness comes at a very high price, because when you see the A-10 swooping down in the mud with impunity, it is because me or someone else in a fighter was sitting above it at 20K feet watching it's back. A Mig-29 could turn an A-10 into aluminum foil in about 30 seconds if left alone with it. So, instead of one aircraft performing the CAS mission, you have 2 or 3 in a high/low combination. That is expensive. Effective yes, but expensive.

So, the Air Force says: "We can do almost as good a job with a stand-off CAS aircraft role for the F-16, and we dont need escort for it either". One F-16 can carry 6 Maverick tank-busters or CBUs in addition to a couple of AIM-120s and a couple 'winders.

So, they have an argument against the A-10. Not a great one, but a cheap one, which Air Force brass loves to hear about, if it gets them a few more -16s in the inventory. The A-10 lives on as it should, but the Air Force made a case against it that some could consider plausible.

[BroncosFan]

The Muslims were no fools. On more than one occasion, they took their combat dead, put a bullet in their heads, lined them up in "mass graves," and then invited the media to come and take a look. The European media was actually pretty good on this, the US media was clueless. The KLA needed an air force, and they got it. We made Europe safe for the free market . . . in heroin.

[ValerieUSA]

I just wonder how Marc Rich made his profit in all this..... or was sending his exxywife into the white house to peruse all the peace negotiation documents between Israel and Arafat and to listen in to schemes while Clintoon was on the phone and Denise was on da knees under da desk all he needed to sell info and arms and blackmail his pardon? Just when did Denise Rich begin her many nightly sojourns into the Oval Office? During the attack on Serbia or later?

[Samurai_Jack]

"But give him one thing - he was a military man unfortunate to be serving under the Klintoons. A more anti-military administration is hard to find in American history."

I would ordinarily agree with your conclusions here in regards to respect for military service. But this particular general was documented as being viewed unfavorably by pentagon brass at the pentagon such that he was denied his fourth star. That is until after he proved his loyalty to the clintons by cooperating with the posse comotatis violation at Waco. Supplying military equipment, training and facilities, troops, advisors and even planners from Fort Hood.

After demonstrating his obsequious loyalty to the clintons he was given his fourth star and elevated to the position of 'supreme commander of NATO'. He was fired from the position because of his inability to follow a chain of command. Now the clintons are rewarding him with a presidential campaign. What makes us think he will submit to limits of presidential powers when he would not properly submit to his position as the 'supreme commander of NATO?

I think that Waco Clark the butcher of bosnia is loyal to the clintons and himself. Yeah, he served under an anti-military administration... and was rewarded richly for a job well done. Nuff Said.

[Vineyard]

The actual population figures may be the basis for many arguments, but the ROOT ISSUE is the Albanians have no legitimate basis for being in Kosovo, and they have inflicted more terror on the Serbs than the Serbs have been ALLEGED to have done to them.

Add to the fact that the Albanians have a systematically been destroying the ancient churches in Kosovo, built by the Serbs ... the Albanians seeking to destroy the very history of Kosovo - tells me that the ethnic Albanians should not be supported in the slightest!!

As mentioned elsewhere ... the Albanians tended to create "massacres" that could be blamed on the Serbs. They have prepretrated lies by the thousands .... and of course, now that Clinton helped the KLA ... we have made Eastern Europe save for the drug trade!!

You can make some determination of the "good guys" and "bad guys" by looking at their friends and enemies. Since the Serbs were our faithful allies in WWII, I would be skeptical to start with ... then as I see that the Albanians were good little Nazis ... I would be hesitant to support them. And looking at the situation 50 years after WWII - I see that there are some issues that can cloud the situation - but there is NOTHING that the ethnic Albanians have done to justify our support, and our war against Serbia. See this article that discusses the "ethnic cleansing of Kosovo people by Serbs" ...http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a383b13b27205.htm

And to add insult to injury ... when we aid the predominantly Muslim ethnic Albanians in Kosovo - does our country get any consideration of "aid to Muslims" ... heck no... they still hate us and still want to kill us.

It was stupid of us to aid the ethnic Albanians.

Try reading: http://www.srpska-mreza.com/bookstore/kosovo/kosovo.htm - the later chapters describe the forced depopulation of Serbs and settlement of Albanians in Kosovo after WWII (and after significant ethnic cleansing where Serbs were killed by Nazi supporters.)

Mike

[Peach]

Thanks for the ping, prairie. It's so interesting that Newsweek did not ask the big questions: Where are the mass graves and why are the troops still there.

It's unimaginable that an article would be written by Newsweek about Iraq without asking the hard questions, but when it comes to a Democrat's war, the rules are completely different.

[Hoplite]

At a minimum, the Allied air campaign forced Serbian forces to hide, and didn't allow them to concentrate to attack the KLA - when they did, on Mt. Pastrik, they got a dose of vitamin B-52. As to the KLA calling in air strikes, considering we were bombing the KLA as well as the Serbs (Kosare, May 22), it's not too well delineated how closely we were working with the KLA in the field.

The problem with evaluating the efficacy of our airstrikes on Serb tactical units remains the lack of access to military records from the Serbian side - Serbia has not to this day put together a meaningful accounting of her civilian casualties, much less her military losses. I note that researching the web will not help one determine the number of remaining Mig-29's in Serbia's inventory (I last tried 6 months ago), so the Serbs are still quite closed mouth about their losses during Allied Force - until they join the PfP and open their archives, the question of Serbia's military losses during Allied Force is going to remain a guessing game on one side and an exercise in concealment on the other.

The whole APC/Tank/Artillery argument overlooks the attacks on Serbia's logistical infrastructure, however, and attacks on transportation, POL, and communications targets are a more effective use of airpower than going after the end users in the field - we'll know the full story eventually, but until we do this topic is going to be the source of more smoke than heat.

[Bedford Forrest]

". . .so I will spare you many examples of excellent Air Force fighter-community work."

Don't spare me, as in, I can survive your rebuttal because you have none. Cheers.

Bedford Forrest

[Pukin Dog]

By neither knowing who I am or what I know, it would be advisable not to speak of things in which you have insufficient knowledge. It is a mark of maturity. Tossing invectives at the Air Force does not build your stature; it actually makes you seem smaller. Keep your cheers, I prefer knowledge.

[Bedford Forrest]

I have yet to hear one substantive rebuttal from you, about anything! Your ad hominem attacks on me are tiresome. If that is all you have to offer,I would observe that the remarks you have directed at me reflect your own concerns about yourself. So, unless you have specific rebuttals to my general remarks about the bluesuit Tacair community, spare all of us the boredom and Jimrob the bandwidth. BTW, I am beginning to suspect that you may have been a backseater, in which case may I be the first to thank you for your service to your country. And BTW, CHEERS.

[Pukin Dog]

Ad hominem attacks? Are you an sane? Why would anyone provide thoughtful responses to over-the-top drivel? I'll ignore the backseater comment, as I ignore the rest of your statements when they appear more anger-driven than factual. I would be happy to discuss the Air Force with anyone when I feel they can do so without hyperbole. Sorry to disapoint you, but I drove and taught others to drive Tomcats for a living. If I was ever in back, it was because whoever was in front was not ready to be there without guidance. RIOs are great people, but I was not one of them.