Stratford Commentary Archive (http://www.stratfor.com/crisis/kosovo/)
NATO’s Old CIA Map Theory makes no Sense Whatsoever
0200 GMT, 990510
http://www.stratfor.com/crisis/kosovo/commentary/c9905100200.htm?section
The most recent NATO explanation of why the Chinese Embassy was
bombed was that the CIA provided outdated maps of Belgrade, showing the
old location of the Embassy before it moved to its new site four years ago.
NATO is also claiming categorically that there was no pilot error and that the
mission was carried out as planned. This is beginning to make no sense
whatever. According to old maps of Belgrade and numerous sources inside
and outside Yugoslavia, four years ago the current site of the Chinese
Embassy was a vacant lot in a residential area. The only major structure
nearby at the time was the Hotel Jugoslavia. Since then an office building
has been constructed nearby.
Now the NATO statement that there was no pilot error and the admission
that an old map was being used are completely incompatible. If we are to
believe both these claims, then we must assume that the target was a
vacant lot. That is possible, assuming there was a bunker there. However,
NATO has leaked to the New York Times that the strike was delivered by B-
2 bombers using laser guided missiles. That means that someone had to fix
a laser beam on the target. They would probably have noticed that the empty
lot now had a large building on it.
This is really getting ridiculous. Pilots using laser guided munitions are
probably provided with detailed photographs of the building to be struck along
with instructions of the optimal point of impact if they are doing the lasing. If
another platform is doing the lasing, they are given instructions on the angle
of attack. The pilots had to have pictures of the building, taken by satellite,
reconnaissance aircraft or other intelligence means. In each case, be
assured that longitude and latitude as well as other appropriate location
designators are provided.
The old map theory is preposterous. It assumes first that the target was an
empty lot and second that NATO is flying air strikes based on maps alone.
What is truly puzzling is that these explanations are so utterly unbelievable
that they are clearly intended to be seen through. Since we can’t believe that
the Chinese Embassy was attacked deliberately (it just makes no sense
whatever) and since the accident couldn’t have occurred the way NATO spin-
doctors are describing, we are at a growing loss to understand the situation.
We can understand how the accident happened much better than we can
understand the increasingly bizarre explanations. As we move further from
the event and more information becomes available, everything makes less
sense.
NATO has said it would give out no further information. Given what it has
handed out so far, we think silence is an outstanding idea.
