GAO cites 'confusion' in Kosovo policy
By Rowan Scarborough and Andrew Cain
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
entagon policy-makers exhibited "confusion" on whether
to use air strikes just one month before the start of
NATO bombing, says a congressional report that adds to the
blame game swirling around President Clinton's stalled war on
Yugoslavia.
A General Accounting Office official said that in late
February, a Pentagon task force on Kosovo told a GAO team
that air assaults were no longer an option. But at the same time,
he said, Mr. Clinton was still threatening military action to get
Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to agree to White
House peace demands. A subsequent GAO briefing paper sent
to some members of Congress told of the internal "confusion."
-- Continued from Front Page --
Meanwhile, the long knives are out, as military leaders and
members of Congress blame President Clinton and his advisers
for a bombing campaign that has failed to stop Serbian
atrocities.
State Department spokesman James P. Rubin yesterday
derided as "wrong and inaccurate," "factually inaccurate" and
"simply wrong" a Washington Post report that Secretary of
State Madeleine K. Albright miscalculated when she expected
NATO bombing would force the Serbs to quickly accept a
peace accord.
White House spokesman Joe Lockhart, referring to "a pile,
that's growing steadily, of inaccurate reports," also played
down indications of dissension and second-guessing in the
ranks.
"I think the president and his national security team have
been united in moving forward this campaign," Mr. Lockhart
said. "I don't think there was anyone under any illusions that
this would be quick or easy."
Mr. Clinton has full confidence in every member of his
national security team, Mr. Lockhart added.
Privately and publicly, military leaders and members of
Congress stepped up their criticism of the president and his
team as the bombs don't stop marauding Serbs from murdering
and deporting ethnic Albanians.
The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon's military
chiefs had expressed "deep reservations" about Mr. Clinton's
Kosovo policy. The Post also reported that both CIA Director
George Tenet and military leaders warned Mr. Clinton that
bombing could prompt an escalation of Serbian atrocities.
The New York Times reported that NATO's strategy of
military action through political consensus is handcuffing Gen.
Wesley Clark, the supreme commander of NATO.
Air Force officers and analysts told The Washington Times
that Mr. Clinton began the air campaign too timidly, should
have furnished more strike planes to Gen. Clark and should not
have telegraphed his reluctance to deploy ground troops.
A Pentagon official said Mr. Milosevic, instead of backing
down, is now in a "mop-up" phase, having nearly wiped out the
Kosovar Albanians.
Now comes the new GAO report, which looked at the
policy-making side of the Pentagon's special task force on the
Balkans at a time when the administration was rattling sabers at
Mr. Milosevic.
"We didn't get a good explanation from the task force," said
the GAO official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
"At that point in time, there was a lot of confusion in the
administration about what they were willing to do."
A March 11 briefing paper was distributed to Congress'
military-oversight committees, along with a fuller classified
report.
Said the report:
"It is unclear, however, what the current intent is with
regards to NATO's planned use of air strikes, as executive
branch officials have recently made conflicting statements on
this issue.
"On February 19, 1999, the president said that NATO
allies stand united in their determination to use force if Serbia
failed to accept the interim peace agreement. Shortly after the
recent negotiations in France ended with neither party agreeing
to the proposed settlement, [the Defense Department] said in
comments to our full report that there is no longer a willingness
to use air and/or ground forces in Kosovo to get an
agreement."
At that point, some in the administration were saying that
unless the ethnic Albanian representatives signed a deal, there
would be no bombing.
But the GAO official said some Pentagon officials told the
GAO that bombing had been killed as an option -- period.
"It's unclear to me whether the military option was indeed
dropped," the GAO official said. "That was the position of the
Pentagon at that point, but it didn't seem to be the position of
the administration at that point."
The Pentagon's task force is a group of senior civilian and
military personnel who recommend policy options for the
Balkans, including the former Yugoslav republic of
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Yugoslavia's province of Kosovo.
"We weren't trying to be cute by putting this in the report,"
the GAO source said. "The point in all of this discussion was,
there seemed to be confusion within the administration as to
what was going to happen.
"The president had said he would use force to get a peace
agreement. A few days later, in [Defense Department]
comments to us, they said they were no longer willing to use air
or ground forces to get an agreement. And that was not
consistent with other sources in the administration."
"The other thing was, there were various tugs of war going
on within the administration. The State Department wanted to
use military force more readily than the Pentagon was willing
to. It seemed there was some lack of direction, and we were
trying to alert Congress to that possibility," the GAO source
said.
The persistent criticism underscores that the bombing
campaign has not achieved the desired result.
"Unfortunately," there is "a certain degree of finger pointing
going on, and I recognize that," Mr. Rubin said yesterday at the
State Department.
"I don't think it is particularly appropriate in a time of crisis,
but that is the nature of a democracy."
More and more members of Congress are going public with
their misgivings. Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and
Richard Lugar of Indiana say Mr. Clinton should send in
ground troops to save Kosovo.
"I don't think it serves any good purpose at this juncture to
have that debate," Rep. Bob Riley, Alabama Republican and a
member of the House Armed Services Committee, said
yesterday.
The actions that led us into the war are "behind us," he said.
"It makes absolutely no difference, it does not serve any useful
purpose, to criticize the administration."
Once the war is over, however, Congress can take a
detailed look at U.S. policy and how the nation has become
involved in conflicts overseas, Mr. Riley said.
Sean Scully and Toni Marshall contributed to this report |
