Now passing something else that fits me better<g>
Is Clinton worth dying for?
What is the US really doing in the Balkans? This is a question that millions
of Americans are now beginning to ask in earnest. Unfortunately, most of
them seem to be arriving at the wrong conclusion. Continually fed stories of
Serbian atrocities, supported by hours of television footage of thousands of
Kosovars forced to abandon their homes, it has been all too easy for
Americans to assume that their government is engaged on a humanitarian
mission. What has not sunk in as yet is the fact that America is at war —
and it is a war — not merely to save Clinton's political skin by driving his
scandals of the front pages but to supply him with the kind of legacy for
which he desperately craves. A legacy that in his own mind would portray him
as a great leader if not actually a hero.
None of this is based on Clinton-hating paranoia (I don't hate the man at
all — I just despise him) but on observation. The manner in which he has
climbed to the top, his betrayal of friends and his country's national
interests, his corruption and compulsive lying, his contempt for the rights
and interests of others, his vindictiveness and spite all indicate a
personality that literally cannot empathasise with others, who merely sees
people as pawns. Such a personality would have no moral qualms about
endangering the lives thousands of US troops if it thought it would promote
its ambitions.
And what is Bill Clinton's chief ambition? In his book Agenda Bob Woodward
relates the tale of Clinton telling his aides how he would have liked to
have been president during WW II. This is a chilling and revealing insight
into Clinton's state of mind. No sensible and humane man really wants to
lead his country into war. He does so out of perceived necessity and nothing
else. War means that leaders have to make awful decisions that involve the
loss of thousands of lives. Churchill, for example, knew that Coventry was
going to be bombed and yet he took no measures to prevent it. Why? Because
that would have told Berlin that the British had cracked their codes. Does
anyone think he enjoyed making this decision? What kind of man wants to put
himself in a position where he has to make life and death decisions for
thousands because he thinks it will make him look good? A man like Clinton,
that's who.
What does he crave? The kind of legacy that the Churchills of history
bequeath their countries. Clinton believed that Kosova offered him such a
legacy on the cheap. The none-too-bright Albright assured him that Milosevic
would quickly surrender to an aerial assault and thus allow NATO, meaning
Clinton, to dictate terms to Milosevic. In this fantasy, Clinton emerges
smelling like roses, a genuine leader who humbles his critics, despatches
his scandals and establishes a legacy worthy of a national hero. Who knows,
maybe even Mount Rushmore figures in his dream.
However, Clinton's dream is in very real danger of turning into a military
and political nightmare for the nation. Elsewhere I wrote that Clinton's
actions risked "triggering uncontrollable forces" and that "any Serbian
leader who gave up Kosovo might as well commit suicide."* I also pointed out
that Milosevic would sit tight while accelerating the drive against Kosovo
Albanians. This is precisely what he did. How did I know? Because Clinton
gave him no choice, unless you consider suicide a choice.
Milosevic knew that the aerial attack would be spearheaded by cruise
missiles. He also knew, as would anybody who read an American paper or
watched CNN, how many cruise missiles the US had in stock. Well, it is now
believed that the cruise inventory may have dropped below 100 because,
thanks to Clinton's gutting of the military, there are no cruise missile
production lines in operation. This means that low flying aircraft will
eventually have to replace them. Something else I pointed out. To make it
worse, the risible 'strategy' of using bombing to 'degrade' Serbia's
military facilities and logistics have been a dismal failure. After more
than 4000 sorties intelligence believes these facilities still largely
remain unscathed. Why? Because the important fixed positions are
underground, where they have been for 50 years, while mobile units,
including hundreds of tanks and ground-to-air missile batteries, remain
intact.
So Serbian forces still have anti-aircraft missile batteries, thousands of
anti-aircraft guns, not to mention several hundred shoulder-launched
anti-aircraft missiles. Does General Wesley Clark know this? Of course he
does and this is why, in my opinion, the pentagon is not releasing battle
damage assessments. Clark knew from the beginning of the campaign it would
fail to severely damage the Serb military because it had prepared itself
decades ago for a massive assault. Only then, the expected enemy was Moscow.
Very sensibly, the Serbs have pursued the
wait-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes military strategy. Meanwhile,
Serbian forces carry on with the expulsion of Kosovar Albanians.
Clinton and his kindergarten circle of advisers cobbled the thing together
in the belief that Milosevic would fold after a week or so. Why shouldn't
he? After all, they would. No wonder there is so much discontent in the
Pentagon. No general would ever dream of committing forces in this manner.
But the commander-in-chief (the man who loathes the military) has done just
that. Now our left-wing dominated media is beginning to talk of a "lengthy
campaign" and the "necessity for ground troops", constantly relating stories
of atrocities and acts of genocide to justify extending the war. Now let me
make this clear: This war is being pursued by Clinton serve his own
ambitions while the liberal (left-wing) media see it as a means to punish
Milosevic for his politics, not for his crimes. Humanitarianism has nothing
to do with it. Many of those calling for war are the same people who cheered
Pinochet's illegal arrest but just cheered and cheered Castro. The same
people who scream for Milosevic's head are cheering Zhu, whose government is
guilty of crimes that greatly exceed anything Milosevic has done.
So Milosevic the thug, whose wife is a dedicated Marxist-Leninist, has been
selected as the means to provide our sociopathic president with his legacy.
That is what it is really all about and that is why a lot of gallant young
Americans are in grave danger of going home in body bags. But Milosevic is
not going to be a patsy for Clinton and probably intends to give Clinton the
kind of legacy he would dearly love to avoid. Clinton gutted the military,
squandered the country's moral authority, aggravated conditions in Kosovo
and made the world a more dangerous place, provoking Russian nationalism,
isolating Macedonia and Montenegro and maybe even destabilising Greece in to
the bargain. Some legacy.
Perhaps now Americans will come to realise that the presidency involves more
than policies on school uniforms, meddling in medical affairs, making
high-sounding commitments about education, etc. Maybe now they will realise
that character does matter and genuine moral authority does not spring from
poll ratings nor is it a matter of numbers.
What of the Kosovar refugees? Like it or not, Kosovo is part of Serbia. If
Serbia expels part of its population this leaves Western nations with only
two choices: a) absorb the refugees or (b) invade kosovar and occupy it on a
permanent basis, expelling those Serbs who resist. It would have been
cheaper and more humane to have implemented a Marshall Plan for Albania than
attack Serbia.
Where or how it will end is now anybody's guess. But the real question still
remains: Is Clinton worth dying for?
|
