as to what occurred, period. You are stating that somehow General Clark should have been insistent in his command and basically "forced" General Jackson to obey his command. This response of yours means that you do not understand how NATO worked, the complexity of what one's reaction should be under the circumstances as they presented themselves. Each NATO country had to sign off on every command aspect of the military planning and situation. For you to suggest that General Clark should have not listened to General Jackson's rationale as to why he opposed the order given by General Clark would have demonstrated a certain lack of rationality on the part of Clark.
It appears that you did not closely enough read the information that I provided you, and as such, I must believe that it doesn't "work" for you because you simply would prefer to be able to criticize Wes Clark, first because of what he did (giving the order)....and then if needed, for what he didn't do (that he didn't somehow force Jackson to obey).
It shows your lack of comprehension that sometimes events cannot be rearranged to suit a story. You have a story, but unfortunately, the facts do not fit. it's kind of like those who were attempting to "fit the facts to the policy" as opposed to "making the policy to fit the facts" in taking us to Iraq. When one is dealing with your type of exhibited dogma, one can realize that it doesn't matter what happened because whatever it is, you will not concede any of your incorrectly supposed allegations.
Here's the part that you don't want to accept in your assertion that Clark should have charismatically "changed" Jackson's mind and compelled him to follow Clark's orders.
When the Russians actually occupied the airfield on June 12, NATO initially wanted to place troops and armored carriers on part of it to block it--not to storm it--because there was a relatively low risk of a confrontation at the airfield--which was large and occupied by only a token force--whereas there might be a very serious risk if the Russians decided to force their way through Hungarian airspace. Then the Hungarians and NATO would be faced with deciding whether to shoot down Russian transports. Much better, Solana and U.S. leaders had reasoned, to avert such a grave situation by making it impossible to land Russian reinforcements in Kosovo. As SACEUR, Clark's job was to develop and implement this plan. However, because NATO is an alliance that work on consensus, every nation possesses a de facto veto over how its troops can be used (also known as a "red card"). In this case, the bulk of the available forces were British, and Jackson decided that he disagreed strongly enough with the policy that he wanted to exercise London's veto. When the two generals consulted their political masters, Washington reversed course--probably more as a result of a desire to placate London and the rest of NATO than out of a fear of provoking Moscow.
Who was ultimately correct here? You might argue that Jackson was correct because they ended up resolving the situation diplomatically without needing the particular operation Clark had ordered. But we have empirical evidence that nothing close to a serious confrontation would have occurred had Clark's orders gone through: several days later, with the situation at Pristina still pretty much the same, both Clark and Jackson authorized French and British units to take positions at the airport. The troops got there. The Russians denied them access. Everyone stood around and radioed back to their commanders for further instruction. Then the NATO units left. Lo and behold, no one got shot. No massive diplomatic crisis. No World Wars began.
Whether the Pristina Airfield story repeated by right-wing Clinton/Clark haters, extreme leftists who still insist that Milosevic was a just and democratic leader, or mainstream journalists eager to present a dramatic story but unwilling to do the legwork to check the facts, it's clear that the only reason it has any legs is because of Jackson's pithy but entirely hyperbolic quote.
Jackson was eventually reprimanded and relieved of his K-For command. That is the proof in the pudding to the fact that Gen. Clark acted appropriately and Gen. Jackson did pay a price....in the manner that was according to the rules that had been previously agreed upon.
Gen Jackson criticized by Kosovo reporthttp://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19991018nato3.htmGerman to assume K-For command http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/444350.stmGerman General Klaus Reinhardt is to replace Britain's General Sir Mike Jackson as commander of Nato's Kosovo peacekeeping force, K-For.
---------
Here's are two great quotes that tells me why
Clark is exactly the type of military officer who's character would be condusive to the Presidency of a Democracy."Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true
and
It was Clark who balanced the demands and misgivings of 19 nations and armies through 78 long days. That showed a great political touch; indeed, Wesley Clark may be too much of a politician for some soldiers—even if he is too much of a soldier for the politicians.http://www.texasforclark.com/departure1.htmThese quotes from journalists
examplify that Wes Clark is no hypocrite nor was he dogmatic. in other words, considering the kind of General he was, to have ordered Jackson to do what Jackson objected strongly to would have been an hypocritical move on Wes Clark's part. The fact that he was totally consistent in allowing for others what he himself has done is the way that it should be....which is why your entire "complaint" on what the General ought to have done is an argument that falls on its face.
------------------
In reference to Clark's early retirement, there has been too much ink written at the time for one to want to feign ignorance as to the circumstances and only look at the result. It is widely known that Clark was sabotaged by the Pentagon's knives.
However, types like you rarely want to acknowledged the facts as they were;
Clark's job descriptions assigned him to clearly wear two hats throughout the War in Kosovo; that of Supreme Allied NATO Commander who's immmediate superior was the state Department which has nothing to do with the Pentagon....
In addition, he also wore the hat of a 4 star General; and in this regard, his superiors were Sec. of Defense Cohen and General Shelton at the Pentagon. The Kosovo War was a NATO War, not a United States mission, and so you are conveniently failing to understand is that although Cohen/Shelton may have resented the fact that Clark was reporting directly to the state department, that is precisely what Clark was supposed to do. In other words, Cohen and Shelton wanted to be the ones to call the shots of this war (guess they wanted some glory since they knew the path to hero-hood), although as a NATO operation that would have been an incorrect line of command. Simply put, in their quest to have total control and power,
Cohen/Shelton were the ones who were wrong in their treatment of Wes Clark....who was correct in how he was handling the various chains of command to the separate departments. Thereby Clark correctly denied Cohen/Shelton the power and control they wished to have, and
because Clark didn't play the game they wanted played, they devised a manner of retiring him early....not because he didn't do his job, but because he had done too good a job that didn't provide for their own personal glory. That is why the only way that they could "get back" at
Clark was to retire him early behind Clinton's back and to leak the announcement to the press in order to disallow Clinton from being able to do anything about it. Cohen and Shelton were called Pentagon knives for a valid reason; Clark did too good a job, and so....he had to go.
It is their character and integrity that should have and was brought into question. And this is why Clark received the Medal of Freedom after his retirement, and was decorated by all of the NATO Countries who had participated, and then some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wesley_Clark_awards_and_honorsThis is also the reason that Wes Clark has two streets named after him in Kosovo, and Cohen and Selton do not.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2647330Jealousy is a green bitch, and Clark was who bore the brunt of the ire.
Cites to back up my comments:
Clark's Exit Was Leaked Deliberately, Official SaysWASHINGTON - One mystery solved. Why was Gen. Wesley Clark's early removal from his post as NATO's top commander leaked within an hour after Clark himself was informed of Defense Secretary William Cohen's decision last week?
Answer: Because Cohen's staff wanted to prevent Clark, who had led the NATO military campaign against Yugoslavia and was known to like his job, from working behind the scenes to undo the decision, according to a senior Pentagon official
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure3.htmTHE UNAPPRECIATED GENERALhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true
Why Wesley Clark Got the Ax at NATO - 8/6/99Defeated generals are sent home in disgrace, but it is most unusual to dismiss victorious ones. Whatever the future may hold for Kosovo--and it looks rather grim at present--there is no doubt that NATO's war against Serbia ended in victory. Nor is it in doubt that its military commander, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, was very much the victorious general of that war.
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure4.htm"Washington's Long Knives" 8/03/99The real story, of course, is that Gen. Clark was not reappointed because he had ruffled too much senior Washington plumage in achieving NATO's victory.
snip
Gen. Wesley Clark has earned the nation's gratitude. He learned well the lesson of using force to prevail in the Balkan snake pit and emerged as a genuine allied commander of stature. In so doing, however,
even a leader of his talents and professionalism was unable to survive the more harsh and unforgiving Washington snake pit. He will depart NATO next April as the shortest-tenured SACEUR since Dwight Eisenhower. That's not bad company to be in.
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure.htmWarrior's Rewards -- Newsweek 8/06/99Gen. Wesley Clark, supreme Allied Commander in Europe, waged and won NATO's campaign for Kosovo without losing a single soldier in action. For the U.S. military, the victory was uniquely—historically—bloodless. Last week Clark learned it was also thankless.
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure1.htm
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(23 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
