Afghanistan - are we repeating the mistakes of Kosovo?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia&Montenegro
Age: 56
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maestro Jackonico,
even I find that article pretty good, and correct I have some objection:
data objections:
- endnote no.38 is incorrect. It operates with YU population of 22 milions. It was population of ex-YU. Present population is arround 10 milions (including Kosovo). It makes "collateral damage" more then twice larger in percentage.
-41. Milosevis had no need to manipulate with public attitude. There was strong willingness for struggle even without him. To be honourest, I think that the most of the people wanted him to be in his bedroom when NATO hit it, but that wouldn't affect military operations, on the contrary, it would boost efforts at Kosovo and even drive military actions out of borders of Yugoslavia, as it was previously decided.So, this put "decapitation theory" in serious troubles.
Principle objections:
His mentioning "war of Serbia against Kosovo" is unappropriate; Kosovo is integral part of Serbia and ,thus, Yugoslavia. Accepting that attitude is prejudicement of final result and create wrong impression about causes of the conflict. Yugoslavia didn't attack some other country, it intervened against terrorists (KLA was on terrorist organisations list, as I know) on its own teritory to prevent forcible separation of that teritory. The real war was NATO aggression. Here I must say that USA broke its own constitution by not proclaiming war after two months of continuous warfare.Furthermore, they cynically named it "humanitarian action" and ,actually, boosted that conflict, escalating it to a struggle of two nations for a territory.
Use of airforces makes me to think that proclaimed aim to save "helpless Kosovo Albanian from Serb's attacks" wasn't the real one.They didn't want to lower minimum altitude for their crews which was the only way for precise targeting of field troops and to detere them from combat actions. That targeting from high altitudes (even with PGM) caused mistakes as killing 60 refugees, hitting the train on railway bridge... IF those were mistakes (I hope they were or I can't imagine that some pilot could do that intentionally-except bombing of the centre of Nis with cluster bombs).
That use of a/f logically leads to conclusion that general aim was to conquer the last territory which is not under NATO control at Balkans and not protection of Albanians. The most of actions were pointed to brake population's willingness for struggle (graphite bombs despite they knew that nothing vital in YU armed forces is powered by electric power, Pancevo refinery despite they knew it's empty-but bombing of tank with pyralen...!) and to accept demands from Rambouillet which are unacceptable for any normal country.
Very interesting observing is that bombing of Bosnian Serbs and bombing of Yugoslavia started after very specific events which finally convinced the average peanut-eating-beer-drinking-TV watcher USA voters for need to bomb some other country.For bmbing of Bosnian Serbs initial reason was "massacre" at marketplace Markale in the center of Sarajevo. But final results of three independent member commission (one Canadian, one Polish and one...I can't remember) was that there was no chance that granades came from Serb's positions at that moment, "but operation started, and it was not wise to abort it , due to political reasons"(words of one Holland UN Airfield Monitor Officer at Podgorica airport,1995,unofficial beer-chat).
Very similar situation was with "massacre in Racak", Kosovo. As I know there was no final results by Finnish autopsy team.
For a difference from YU campaign, USA(NATO) are in diferent position:
Politically, there is no need to convince average PEBDTVW-voter of need for action, NATO is strongly united (for a difference of YU campaign), they have support of whole world.
Military, they are in troubles, because there is no clear targets, not enough time for action preparations,strategic airpower doctrine is not so applicable in this case.All in all it seems that it was really unexpected for them and I think it's time for Eagle to turn his head to another side, to arrows.A/f sorties will be at tactical level and presence of field troops will be neccessary which will, no doubt, cause losses and troubles at internal political scene. Due to all of this, opening of far-East theatre is expected.
even I find that article pretty good, and correct I have some objection:
data objections:
- endnote no.38 is incorrect. It operates with YU population of 22 milions. It was population of ex-YU. Present population is arround 10 milions (including Kosovo). It makes "collateral damage" more then twice larger in percentage.
-41. Milosevis had no need to manipulate with public attitude. There was strong willingness for struggle even without him. To be honourest, I think that the most of the people wanted him to be in his bedroom when NATO hit it, but that wouldn't affect military operations, on the contrary, it would boost efforts at Kosovo and even drive military actions out of borders of Yugoslavia, as it was previously decided.So, this put "decapitation theory" in serious troubles.
Principle objections:
His mentioning "war of Serbia against Kosovo" is unappropriate; Kosovo is integral part of Serbia and ,thus, Yugoslavia. Accepting that attitude is prejudicement of final result and create wrong impression about causes of the conflict. Yugoslavia didn't attack some other country, it intervened against terrorists (KLA was on terrorist organisations list, as I know) on its own teritory to prevent forcible separation of that teritory. The real war was NATO aggression. Here I must say that USA broke its own constitution by not proclaiming war after two months of continuous warfare.Furthermore, they cynically named it "humanitarian action" and ,actually, boosted that conflict, escalating it to a struggle of two nations for a territory.
Use of airforces makes me to think that proclaimed aim to save "helpless Kosovo Albanian from Serb's attacks" wasn't the real one.They didn't want to lower minimum altitude for their crews which was the only way for precise targeting of field troops and to detere them from combat actions. That targeting from high altitudes (even with PGM) caused mistakes as killing 60 refugees, hitting the train on railway bridge... IF those were mistakes (I hope they were or I can't imagine that some pilot could do that intentionally-except bombing of the centre of Nis with cluster bombs).
That use of a/f logically leads to conclusion that general aim was to conquer the last territory which is not under NATO control at Balkans and not protection of Albanians. The most of actions were pointed to brake population's willingness for struggle (graphite bombs despite they knew that nothing vital in YU armed forces is powered by electric power, Pancevo refinery despite they knew it's empty-but bombing of tank with pyralen...!) and to accept demands from Rambouillet which are unacceptable for any normal country.
Very interesting observing is that bombing of Bosnian Serbs and bombing of Yugoslavia started after very specific events which finally convinced the average peanut-eating-beer-drinking-TV watcher USA voters for need to bomb some other country.For bmbing of Bosnian Serbs initial reason was "massacre" at marketplace Markale in the center of Sarajevo. But final results of three independent member commission (one Canadian, one Polish and one...I can't remember) was that there was no chance that granades came from Serb's positions at that moment, "but operation started, and it was not wise to abort it , due to political reasons"(words of one Holland UN Airfield Monitor Officer at Podgorica airport,1995,unofficial beer-chat).
Very similar situation was with "massacre in Racak", Kosovo. As I know there was no final results by Finnish autopsy team.
For a difference from YU campaign, USA(NATO) are in diferent position:
Politically, there is no need to convince average PEBDTVW-voter of need for action, NATO is strongly united (for a difference of YU campaign), they have support of whole world.
Military, they are in troubles, because there is no clear targets, not enough time for action preparations,strategic airpower doctrine is not so applicable in this case.All in all it seems that it was really unexpected for them and I think it's time for Eagle to turn his head to another side, to arrows.A/f sorties will be at tactical level and presence of field troops will be neccessary which will, no doubt, cause losses and troubles at internal political scene. Due to all of this, opening of far-East theatre is expected.
