>today's papers [From SLATE, copyright 1999 by Microsoft] >By Scott Shuger >The WP, NYT and LAT [major US daily papers] each lead with the official emergence within NATO, however slight, of the topic of ground warfare against Yugoslavia--the alliance's decision to conduct a basic review of possible ground deployment plans. Each paper emphasizes a different factor in this development. The WP stresses that the review came from the NATO secretary general, Javier Solana. The NYT attributes it to pressure on the U.S. from Britain and France. The LAT acknowledges the nudge from Britain's PM Tony Blair, whom it calls NATO's "most outspoken hawk," but overall tells the story of a U.S. decision. The papers agree that any actual commitment of ground forces is still many steps away. USAT off-leads the story--likewise speaking of a U.S. decision, noting that the review is advocated by Gen. Wesley Clark ... >The WP and LAT say that the initial NATO assessment of a ground invasion, formulated last summer, concluded that it would take as many as 200,000 troops to take control of all of Serbia. Question: What were the casualty estimates? The papers should be asking. The Post points out that by making his review decision public, Solana has apparently ensured that the question of ground troops will be much discussed at this week's 50th NATO summit in Washington. (Although the NYT reports that the topic will not be on the meeting's formal agenda.) And, observes the Post, the White House, in arranging for Solana to give the Post a phone interview, was making certain that it was clear the decision was Solana's and not Washington's. (But actually it doesn't really prove that--maybe the Clinton administration decided first and then asked Solana to serve as a fig leaf.) >The NYT captures the tepid language the U.S. government is serving up around the issue of ground troops, quoting a White House official saying, "The U.S. would certainly support as a prudent measure any updating of the assessments of the use of ground troops in a permissive and nonpermissive environment." A bit of a drop-off from "Lafayette, we are here!" >... The WSJ and LAT report that the European Union is set to ban the sale or shipment of oil to Yugoslavia. The Journal reports that the U.S. is pressing for a naval blockade to support the ban. >The LAT's man on the ground in Kosovo, Paul Watson, fresh off reporting facts about last week's refugee convoy bombing that impugned the initial NATO "it wasn't us" stance, today writes that four Serbian refugees were killed when NATO warplanes hit the camp where they've lived since Serbs were expelled from Croatia in 1995. >The WP reports that Slobodan Milosevic told a Houston TV station that the three American soldiers captured a few weeks ago are being treated well and that their treatment was in accord with the Geneva Convention. (USAT includes a similar report.) The Post and USAT report however that no Red Cross representatives have been allowed to check on the men yet. The papers don't say but isn't Red Cross access guaranteed under the Geneva Convention? < Does the Geneva Convention apply when no war has been declared? BTW, a letter to the LA TIMES today suggests that it would have been cheaper if the US had offered to _buy_ Kosovo. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html Bombing DESTROYS human rights. US/NATO out of Serbia!
