Katrina vanden Heuvel on Wesley Clark

On June 12, 1999, in the immediate aftermath of NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, a small contingent of Russian troops dashed to occupy the Pristina airfield in Kosovo. Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians that he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units--an order which could have unleashed the most frightening showdown with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. Hyperbole? You can decide.

But British General Michael Jackson, the three-star general and commander of K-FOR, the international force organized and commanded by NATO to enforce an agreement in Kosovo, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting world war III for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport.

After being rebuffed by Jackson, Clark, according to various media reports at the time, then ordered Admiral James Ellis, the American in charge of NATO's southern command, to use Apache helicopters to occupy the airfield. Ellis didn't comply--replying that British General Jackson would oppose such a move. Had Clark's orders been followed, the subsequent NATO- negotiated compromise with the Russians--a positive element in the roller- coaster relationship between Moscow and Washington, which eventually incorporated Russian troops into peacekeeping operations--might well have been undermined.

In the end, Russian reinforcements were stopped when Washington persuaded Hungary, a new NATO member, to refuse to allow Russian aircraft to fly over its territory. Meanwhile, Jackson was appealing to senior British authorities, who persuaded Clinton Administration officials--some of whom had previously favored occupying the airport--to drop support for Clark's hotheaded plan. As a result, when Clark appealed to Washington, he was rebuffed at the highest levels. His virtually unprecedented showdown with a subordinate subsequently prompted hearings by the Armed Forces Services Committee, which raised sharp questions about NATO's chain of command.

Indeed, it is believed in military circles that Clark's Pristina incident was the final straw that led the Pentagon to relieve him of his duties (actually retire him earlier). Clark had also angered the Pentagon brass--and Secretary of Defense William Cohen in particular--with his numerous media appearances and repeated public requests for more weapons and for more freedom to wage the Kosovo war the way he wanted (with ground troops). At one point, according to media reports, Defense Secretary Cohen, through Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, told Clark to "get your fucking face off of TV."

http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7

<>

<>

I'm not going to comment on the veracity of the Kosovo incident story, but it's making the rounds enough to have to be considered somewhat true (rather than just complete b.s.)

What I want to know is, what is The Nation's impetus for this story? vanden Heuvel is a good Dem, yet this is more or less an attack piece on Clark. curious...

though I'd like to hear Clark answer it just to hear his side of the story.

"Good Dem?" :shrug:

Katrina Vanden Heuvel is one of my absolute favorites, and the best pundit on the tube with brains and passion to spare.

Wesley Clark will be certainly be questioned about this incident. Found it interesting that in his book he said the "suggestion" for this showdown with the Russians at the Pristina Airport came from Washington...

They volunteered their paratroopers. Clark then sought to get a few companies of U.S. troops to keep the French from being vulnerable to Serb counterattack.

someone in Washington didn't want Russian troops in Kosovo, and Clark was on the front lines making the decision to follow that policy.

Whether or not his was a good decision could be argued forever, but, ultimately, they found another way to keep Russians out of Kosovo for the time being.

And one Brit general found this particular decision to be faulty? The Brit general who was supposedly on charge of the operation the Brits had been leading for a while before we got there and took over?

Why am I reminded of the constant arguments between Montgomery and Eisenhower? Monty refused to be the anvil to Patton's hammer after Ardennes, and refused to play a similar supporting role in the narrow crossing of the Rhine. Both of these petulant refusals caused the war in Europe to be extended by at least months, but Monty felt dissed after chasing Rommel through North Africa for all that time while we sat on our asses arguing over Lend-Lease.

Oh, and there was Patton's rush to beat the Russkies to Berlin, which was cut short from on high.

Ahhh, history-- thou repeatest thyself forever.

<snip>

Despite concerns this incident raises, it remains a fact that the prospect of a Clark candidacy is tantalizing. Clark says he is a liberal Democrat who favors abortion rights, affirmative action, gun control and progressive economic policies. He has also spoken eloquently about basing America's role in the world on the country's better principles: "generosity, humility, engagement… "

The other day, Clark told Bill Maher on HBO that this country was founded on "the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues…We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back."

Perhaps Clark has learned that building alliances--and not risking showdowns-- is more crucial than ever in these perilous times? It would be good to hear from the general himself--whether he runs or not.

<snip>

*******************************************************************
Unlike some I don't assume that this incident makes Clark unfit--and even dangerous--as a candidate. I agree with Katrina that these are questions that will need to be addressed. I assume they will be.


-ph :smoke:

I remember reading a whole post on this subject in July.

But I have infinite respect for vanden Heuvel, so I thought it at least merited discussion. This is the first time I've paid this story any mind, so I apologize if its old news.

issue has been hashed over at least 20 or 30 times in GD.

Your candidate is dead in the water. Slamming every other candidate isn't going to help him. The guy looks like the Frankenstein monster already; maybe he needs a new dose of electricity or something, but rehashing this kind of bullshit and pretending ignorance isn't going to do it.

This was just info, from a respected source (Katrina vanden Heuvel). It's not like it was a FOX article.

None of the candidates are dead in the water, and certainly not Kerry.

I think when Clark jumps in it's going to get a whole lot uglier, though; he's going to generate a lot of emotion on all sides.

Take the high road, keep getting out the positive articles on your candidate.

Have you ever seen me post in one of those threads? I can think of one reason why you haven't. I wonder if you can.

Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor-in-chief of one of the most respectable political magazines in the country, does not put out articles to "bash" candidates. If she wrote this, it is to raise legitimate questions, which is what I am doing.

To understand what you are doing, I will just quote you:

"Your candidate is dead in the water. Slamming every other candidate isn't going to help him. The guy looks like the Frankenstein monster already; maybe he needs a new dose of electricity or something, but rehashing this kind of bullshit and pretending ignorance isn't going to do it."

I'm not a nice fella at all. And I get decidedly more un-nice when I'm dealing with bullshit.



Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor-in-chief of one of the most respectable political magazines in the country, does not put out articles to "bash" candidates. If she wrote this, it is to raise legitimate questions, which is what I am doing.

Her little hack piece is slanted against Clark throughout. The language, for example, describing Clark as 'anxious,' while portraying Jackson as calm, 'Sir, I'm not going to start WWIII for you...' is hardly what someone interested in raising 'legitimate questions' would use. Hovel has made up her mind on Clark already, else she would know that Jackson was hardly the calm person she portrayed him as according to Clark, who wrote his own version of what happened -- which hasn't been challenged by anyone, by the way, including Jackson.

Or this little gem:

Meanwhile, Jackson was appealing to senior British authorities, who persuaded Clinton Administration officials--some of whom had previously favored occupying the airport--to drop support for Clark's hotheaded plan.

Yeah, a real fair-minded approach there.


Surely the Nation hasn't sunk so low that they can't afford a subscription to Lexus-Nexus, to get some balancing information? I can get some after a brief web search -- as you could have, if you were truly interested in what you claim, raising 'legitimate' questions.

Frankenstein needs his lightning now.

let the facts come out! Let General Clark have a chance to give us his side of the story!

"Chapter 15: Pristina Airfield", pp.375-403, from Waging Modern War.

The short version is that he recounts difficulties in NATO negotiations pinning down (pro-Milosevic) Russia's demands to participate in KFOR, recounts the problems in Bosnia where the Russians basically took good care of Serb interests, including protection of war criminals, in Bosnia.

He then recounts offers and consideration in taking the airfield before the Russians arrived, after the Russians broke an agreement and moved troops out of Bosnia. The fear is that they would undercut the ability of Kosovar refugees to return home to safety free from Serb atrocities. The French, certainly no advocates of rash military action, offered to seize the airport. Javier Solana, Secretary-General of NATO, agreed that NATO should take the airport first. Yeah, that Javier Solana, the Spanish Socialist Party member who once even opposed Spain's entry into NATO. Clark's American commanders (including Shelton, Cohen, and Albright) were on board.

Jackson opposed the move, and there were some communications designed to limit the numbers of troops in the movement, with Clark believing that a small force would be at risk from Serb attack. Interestingly enough, General Sir Charles Guthrie, the Chief of Staff of the British Army, supported Clark over Jackson.

While all this was going on, the Russians moved into Pristina Airfield. The NATO response, approved by NATO and American political command, was to move men and supplies to Pristina in the name of logistical support to the joint Russian-NATO occupation. NATO secured cooperation from Hungary and other Eastern European nations to deny overflights to the Russian reinforcements and supplies. The NATO forces would also park themselves on the runway, preventing reinforcements.

This was not Clark's position. This was the official policy of NATO and of the U.S. Approval had been given. The fact that Jackson would convince the British to veto the plan (events that happened after the conversation with the "WWIII" line, not before) does not detract from the fact that Clark was following a plan approved by NATO and the Clinton Administration. Once the UK vetoed the move, our command changed their minds, and Clark didn't persue it. Clark used procedural means within SFOR (NATO's Bosnia force) to keep Russian reinforcements out of Kosovo. The Russians then backed down.

What's popping up around the internet is absolutely ridiculous. Now it's beginning to impact on mainstream journalists doing sloppy work. The problem is that it creates a slippery slope where the media is jumping on stories like this. Try explaining "Al Gore invented the internet" or "Dean got a deferral from Vietnam and went skiing" in a manner that will counter snappy titles (like the ones above). In 2000, we got the leadership we deserved as a nation for going for this stuff. (Don't even tell me about Florida. "Al Gore just wanted another recount").

Who, apparently, is not a nice fella. Instead of attacking me, you actually provide some context for the situation and answers to my questions. Thank you.

PS - For the record, Dean admittedly went go skiing after his deferral. However, it is complete conjecture that the two have any relation. And Gore invented Vanilla Coke, not the internet.;-)

I just have to question this whole thing

it sounds like a hatchet job on Clark

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0913-06.htm


As far as Kosovo goes, hey, nobody's perfect. But Clark sure seems to be a good fit.

:kick:

The Clinton Wars has some comments on this.