Using another bloggers opinion to back up one’s own view or to dispute another’s view is a fool-hardy thing to do at best. However, while researching info on Wesley Clark, I used one item of this blogger’s source material, the International Herald Tribune--the blog link was provided by one of my commenters.
The IHT is presumably laden with some verifiable information that I can use to continue developing my own opinion about General Clark's character.
From the article:
What really happened, the U.S. officials said, was that the White House and top NATO military commanders in Europe framed two plans for swift military action once the Russian column was detected leaving its position and heading toward Kosovo.[snip]
Initially, as the Russian column moved through Serbia, the U.S.-backed plan called for a mobile spearhead of NATO troops to make the 40-kilometer (25-mile) dash to Pristina first and cut the access roads to the airport before the Russians could get there.
Later on June 11 the Clinton administration's security team, along with the two top U.S. commanders in NATO, backed a bolder but still small-scale operation, essentially a helicopter-led landing by a NATO task force at Pristina airport before the Russians there could settle in.As we know now, neither option was taken due to many differing accounts of what went on between the two commanders and their superiors. Outsiders’ interpretations of this incident can differ, even when all use the acceptable forms of critical analysis. And, as the IHT cites nebulous “US officials” and the like, the veracity of events is open to even more speculation. Determining whether nothing would have happened or whether “World War III” [sic] would have ensued is an even bigger crap shoot.
Now, as boloboffin, one of my commenters in the previous Clark post, points out using information from a Jane’s link provided, Russian soldiers weren’t exactly flush in the logistics department back then--and likely not now. However, what he forgets is this: Russia had—and still has—weapons that don’t require feeding, uniforms or water. One presumes that General Jackson didn’t forget that, either. Also, it is even more fool-hardy to rely on reasonable actions and reactions from the leaders of what used to be the Советский Союз, especially if the present head-of state is any indication.
In short, however, who knows who know who might have tried to blow up da owl? Call it a toss-up. I concede that General Clark may not be a hot-head. One still wonders, however, in light of other reports about his behavior, what kind of person--what kind of leader--the good general is. Are all these stories giving a false picture of this potential POTUS? Or the true one? We will definitely see.
NOTE: Just so there’s no doubt about it, then-NATO peacekeeping force commander, General Sir Michael Jackson of Britain apparently did apparently rip into then-NATO supreme commander General Wesley Clark back in 1999 over the Pristina Airport incident. From an LA Times commentary by Paul Richter(registration required):
Clark ordered British Lt. Gen. Sir Michael Jackson to block the runway so the Russians couldn't bring in reinforcements. The British general refused, telling Clark: "I'm not starting World War III for you," Clark said in his 2001 book, "Waging Modern War."
(Thanks to Antidotal and boloboffin)
