-Caveat Lector-
>From www.insightmag.com
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a372b2c29533a.htm
Via http://www.antiwar.com/
<<Please note the interesting 'web' of links>>
FreeRepublic.com "The web's premier conservative news discussion forum!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[ Home | Latest | More | Register | Login | Logoff | Post | Search | Help! ]
Topic: White Water
Kosovo Ground War: CIA says 15,000 U.S. Dead
Insight
May 24, 1999 Jamie Dettmer
Published in Washington, D.C.. . . . Vol. 15, No. 19 -- May 24, 1999 . . . .
www.insightmag.com
Kosovo Ground War: CIA says 15,000 U.S. Dead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
By Jamie Dettmer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
How many American casualties would be acceptable, if President Clinton
decides on a ground war in Yugoslavia? That's a question members of the
House Armed Services Committee found themselves considering during a
briefing the CIA gave them on the eve of the NATO summit. According to
Langley, they should expect at least a 10 percent casualty rate -- in short,
a loss of 10,000 to 15,000 soldiers, depending on American force strength in
an allied army.
The exact size of an American contribution to a possible NATO force is, of
course, unclear at this stage. But most military experts -- and Clinton
administration officials -- privately acknowledge that the overwhelming bulk
of any force would have to come from the United States.
According to London sources, Britain only could muster 8,000 to 10,000
combat troops and the same holds for France and Germany. No doubt a platoon
here and a company there would be supplied by other NATO members. An
invasion force probably would have to number about 150,000, with the
American contribution being approximately 120,000.
"I'm not sure how they arrived at the 10 percent figure," a committee member
tells news alert!. "Several of my colleagues felt the rate may be
optimistic. Skepticism was muted, though. A lot of us feel more comfortable
with CIA briefings than Pentagon ones -- they tend to be less polemical,
harp less about how we are winning and are full of harder facts."
While the military briefings are more public relations in nature, lawmakers
are fully aware of the discontent sweeping the Pentagon. Some top Air Force
generals are appalled at how the Clinton administration has seized on
bombing as a panacea for overseas problems. They also are criticizing Army
Gen. Wesley Clark, NATO's supreme commander. Like some lawmakers who
recently visited Europe with Secretary of State William Cohen, they harbor
fears that Clark is becoming "intemperate" in the face of pressure and are
shocked at his gung-ho suggestion of bombing Russian tankers in the event
they continue to transport fuel to Montenegrin ports.
American generals aren't the only ones dissatisfied. Britain's top brass
also apparently are furious, or "brassed off," to use British idiom. Like
the Pentagon, the Ministry of Defense, or MoD, in London warned the
politicians that Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic would tough out any bombing
assault. But British Prime Minister Tony Blair was as adamant as his "Third
Way" twin, Bill Clinton, that Milosevic would buckle quickly and that a
nice, neat and quick war was there to be had.
Several recently retired British generals have printed their disdainful
thoughts on how the politicians messed up. Sir Michael Rose, a onetime
commander of allied forces in Bosnia, has expressed his doubts on the
thinking behind the air war. So, too, Sir Peter de la Billiere, another old
Bosnia hand, who has said: "The air assault is like a cake with icing but no
filling. Without the threat of a ground invasion, air strikes alone are
little deterrent to a dictator like Milosevic and leave no acceptable
options should they fail."
It is unusual in Britain for even retired senior officers to express
publicly such reservations about government policy. The fact that they did
suggests deep worry in the MoD -- and it is widely interpreted in London
that such officers are speaking for their active-service colleagues.
The Democrats' Running-Dog Press . . . .
In the House Speaker's Lobby on April 28 the congressional press corps was
giving a hard time to any GOP lawmaker they could find. "Why insist on a
war-powers vote?" one persistent New York reporter demanded of
Pennsylvania's Rep. William Goodling, who cosponsored a successful
resolution demanding the president seek congressional approval before
committing ground troops for an invasion force.
The reporter continued: "Republicans didn't when it came to Bush and the
gulf or Reagan and Grenada or Panama. Is it because of this president?"
Goodling kept to the constitutional argument, fearful no doubt like a lot of
his colleagues, of being accused of inconsistency or of digging up Monica
Lewinsky stuff. Would that matter? Can't a perfectly respectable argument be
made that lawmakers indeed could trust Ronald Reagan and George Bush more in
military matters and that the conduct of the war so far has done nothing to
allay misgivings about Clinton's war-making abilities?
Intriguingly, the far quieter but equally anxious Democratic lawmakers found
themselves unmolested by reporters. Aren't there questions to be fired at
them, such as why they pressed resolutions on previous war-fighting
Republican presidents but now give a pass to a Democratic incumbent?
Partial press questioning also was evident about the GOP's determination to
increase by $7 billion the president's $6 billion emergency funding request
for Kosovo. "Aren't you just trying to blackmail Clinton to increase
military funding?" asked a reporter of Republicans. How about asking
Democrats why they want to continue to penny-pinch the military even when it
is clear that military readiness has been hit hard by lack of funding for
several years?
Copyright © 1999 News World Communications, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
A<>E<>R
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
