What's *really* going on in Kosovo?
This file revised 6/7/99: The next few weeks will be a roller coaster ride in the media as peace deals fail, seem to be on track again, then get derailed. This must come to pass as the "True Millennium" approaches this month June 1999 (Gregorian)<=> Tammuz 5759 (Hebrew) So what is the deal with ground troops? This message is for your eyes only. This is my opinion - from someone with over 10 years of experience in the defense industry, both in uniform and as a civilian contractor. I am not a weapons expert or target planner, but I have been around these types of activities, including a recent stint at the Pentagon, to have a clue as to what really goes on. That's all I can say on that topic- or I would have to shoot you. Don't forward this to any mailing lists, but to your friends directly is okay. Prior to starting the air campaign, defense planners at the Pentagon (and NSA and CIA, and various command staffs, most of which are not located inside the actual Pentagon which is just an old WWII style office building- a living museum; most of the REAL stuff happens elsewhere) put together a detailed battle plan for a ground war in Kosovo. There are multiple options and scenarios that were detailed, modeled, and categorized to allow a CINC to respond in various ways to changing conditions in the field. This information is and has been available to the appropriate command authorities in the US and NATO allies for months before the operation began. That includes members of the Senate Armed Services Committee like John McCain who is the "point man" for the Senate rally to grant the President full war powers including ground troops. $6 billion called a "down payment" to continue the air war into September. The NATO summit was held April 23-25 in Washington DC. On April 24 Mars was at opposition to the sun. I had predicted in an earlier version of this page that the ground war would start on that date. I was wrong. But what I should have said was that *IF* the Clinton administration wanted to start a ground war and be victorious, then they *SHOULD* have started the ground campaign on that date and they would have had all the "signs" with them. The Bush and Reagan administrations always consulted an astrologer before scheduling a major offensive. By ignoring the synchronistic aspects of battle planning, Clinton has lost the momentum for a successful ground campaign in more ways than one. When former SACEUR and Secretary of State Al Haig even comes out publicly to say that the Clinton/Albright team has been handling diplomacy all wrong, you have to wonder. Why would they publicly announce "No ground Troops?" It was bad diplomacy and bad tactics- like putting all your cards face up in a game of bluff poker. When I wrote this in April 1999: "It annoyed me at first that the Clinton Administration has been publicly ruling out the use of ground troops. Now I see it for what it is. Clinton wants to be in the position politically of looking like he resisted sending in the troops when in fact this has been the plan all along (if they have their act together, which many people publicly doubt)." ... I was giving the Clinton administration too much credit. I thought the press reports of indecision and political in-fighting were just counter- propaganda planted in the press to create confusion and preserve the element of surprise. That would have made sense if the ground war were imminent- now I see that the press reports were accurate. We are in a very dangerous situation although nobody is saying so publicly. We have a commander in chief with no command experience who makes decisions by committee. Success in the Balkans requires decisive leadership by someone who understands tactical warfare- our current political leadership are military neophytes.
Apaches arrive in Albania: April 21 1999 Chris M "Inside the Beltway"
