www.ditl.org

Kendall - that would be funny if I didn't think he were dangerously close.

Mikey wrote:Kendall - that would be funny if I didn't think he were dangerously close.

Just five months to go dude before freedom!

"... freedom ... is a worship word..."

"Yang worship"

Five? Seven until the actual inauguration. I wouldn't put it past Bush to concoct some idiotic lame-duck scheme.

Mikey wrote:Five? Seven until the actual inauguration. I wouldn't put it past Bush to concoct some idiotic lame-duck scheme.

I know but in five months we'll know whether you and the world get hope or Bush 2.0: More Fuckery. I'm also hoping he'll shut his dick hole after the election (not in any way implying that Cheney has something in there).

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:
You really want some twerp who nearly started World War Three thanks to panicky micromanagement as VP?

I'm with you, having a VP who was willing to start WWIII over an airport in one of the shitiest countries on Earth is a recipe for disaster. Aren't the Dems supposed to be anti-war?

I don't remember this but I've seen it in one of your quotes could someone explain this?

I don't think he'll do it. It would be to obvious, the pople wouldnt allow it.

Monroe wrote:[q

I don't remember this but I've seen it in one of your quotes could someone explain this?

Wesley was SACEUR during the Kosovo "liberation" and ordered the NATO contigent to occupy Priština International Airport, an airport that the Russian contingent had planned on occupying. The British contigent commander General Mike Jackson refused, saying he did not want to start a war with Russia.

The Americans made a huge issue out of Jacksons refusal, though he was backed up the UK Defense Minister. How the Americans planned to charge a foreign military officer with insubordination was never made clear, it goes without saying that even a US Senate hearing can't do squat to a Brit General.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Monroe wrote:[q

The Americans made a huge issue out of Jacksons refusal, though he was backed up the UK Defense Minister. How the Americans planned to charge a foreign military officer with insubordination was never made clear, it goes without saying that even a US Senate hearing can't do squat to a Brit General.

Ah thanks. In theory though, the UN should be able to prosecute a UK general. American troops have to take orders from UN commanders, even though the rate of AWOL goes up considerably and I personally would not want to take UN orders it's part of the job.

But a UK general doesn't have to accomodate those orders if they are come from an American commander without a sanctioned UN command position.

Mikey wrote:But a UK general doesn't have to accomodate those orders if they are come from an American commander without a sanctioned UN command position.

True. But if Clark was in charge via NATO or UN permission over Kosovo then the Brit commander would be in the wrong.

IF he was, yes. I honestly don't recall who had overall command per the UN.

Monroe wrote: True. But if Clark was in charge via NATO or UN permission over Kosovo then the Brit commander would be in the wrong.

This falls into the illegal/unethical orders category. Attacking your ally is unethical.

As far as I know, the Pristina airport incident went something like this:

1) A Russian column entered Serbia from Bosnia, heading for Pristina. It was 250 men strong, was commanded by a 2-star general (!), and had "KFOR" (the designation of the NATO ground forces in the campaign) prominently written on its vehicles.

2) Clark initially wanted to airlift a battalion into Pristina airport to deny it to the Russians, but was disuaded since it would violate an existing agreement with the Serbs, and would leave the unit in question in danger of being cut off - the only land link between KFOR's base in Albania and Kosovo was over a single bridge.

3) NATO entered Kosovo with the British contingent under Major General Dannatt (5 Airbourne and 4 Armoured Brigades) leading. Mike Jackson (Commander KFOR) flew ahead to Pristina to establish contact with the Russians, and did so successfully.

4) Clark ordered the airport runway blocked by helecopters to prevent the Russians flying in reinforcements. By this stage KFOR was in control on the ground, and had air superiority - the only significant outcome of such an action would have been to antagonise the Russians and possibly precipitate a firefight. Jackson refused the order (see my sig).

5) Jackson phoned Gen. Charles Guthrie (the Chief of Defence Staff) in London, and after a short conversation was told to put Clark on the phone. Clark was told not only that Guthrie agreed with Jackson, but so did Gen. Hugh Shelton - the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs. Washington's position was that they wanted the runway blocked, but not if it provoked a confrontation with the Russians (which seems like a contradiction in terms).

6) Clark repeated his order to block the runway. Jackson suggested that armoured vehicles would be better suited to the task, and Clark agreed. 4 Armoured Brigade was therefore given the task, and refused it on orders from London (as Jackson almost certainly suspected would be the case).

End result: sod-all happened, and the possibility of a serious incident with the Russians was averted. No thanks to Wes Clark.

Source: Mike Jackson's autobiography, so there's likely to be some bias in the recounting.

I think by "confrontation" they meant shooting or other violence.

Basically Wes wanted to play a game of Chicken. Figuring the Russians wouldn't start shooting and would just have to deal with not being reinforced.

As is things turned out fine. But Russia could have chosen to flood the area with their own personel, and this could have led to a very different future for Kosovo.

And, well, our rather large military base there.

Sounds to me like Clark had some 'splaining to do as to why he went ahead and reissued his order AFTER hearing different from the JCOS...