Replies

Well, my recollection was that that the Serb armor avoided damage because it stayed parked in camouflaged spots, and didn't move. Thus while it avoided damage, it was rendered ineffective. When Kosovar troop spotters finally got in country however, and spotted the sites, then the armor began to be flushed out, and wiped out. After a couple of incidents like that, Slobo folded his hand. He knew the jig was up.

So I think the article is errant, except for the bit perhaps that it offers up yet another example of Clark's pathological tendency to prevaricate.

What's your recollection Hop?

I think this article is more "dead on" than anyone from the DemoCrap side might want to consider.

The high altitude bombing was totally ineffective against the mobile targets in Kosovo. The only bombing that was effective was the bombing against the Serb civilian targets. Note that our bombing in Iraq was the opposite - we went out of our way to avoid damage to civilians, and we certainly didn't want to damage the civilian infrastructure in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the Clintonistas and the military higher-ups didn't give a damn about the Serb civilians or Serbian infrastructure, and they did a lot of damage. (The idiots claiming Bush is a war criminal should consider the real damage done by Clinton.) The Clinton administration didn't want to consider that Kosovo, a long-time province of Serbia had a majority of ethic Albanians ONLY because the ethnic Albanians had a) done ethnic cleansing of Serbians during WWII (and the Serbs were reliable allies of the Allies, while the Albanians whole-heartedly supported the Nazis - including genocide of enemies) and also b) Serbia and Kosovo had a better economy, so Albanians came into Kosovo (sort of the way that Mexicans come into California/Arizona/Texas. Imagine what would happen if the UN supported a "plebiscite" where Southern California could vote to separate from the US and become part of Mexico. At least So.California was at one time part of Mexico ... while Kosovo's relationship to Serbia would be more like Boston and Plymouth Rock is to the U.S.)

When the Serbs were bombed into submission and agreed to withdraw - they were able to DRIVE most all their armour - tanks, etc., out of Kosovo - all intact. The military was surprised at the amount of weaponry that survived .... but the Serbs were good at "spoofing".

We were on the wrong side. The evidence of ethnic cleansing is 1/100th as reliable as the evidence of WMDs in Iraq.

Mike

Well, my recollection was that that the Serb armor avoided damage because it stayed parked in camouflaged spots, and didn't move. Thus while it avoided damage, it was rendered ineffective.

Hmmm. Armor couldn't have been rendered ineffective against air power because it is ineffective against air power in the first place. If your enemy is only going to pound you from the air and not commit to the ground, it makes sense to keep your armor assets hidden. Not much they can do against planes 15,000 feet up in the air.

At a minimum, the Allied air campaign forced Serbian forces to hide, and didn't allow them to concentrate to attack the KLA - when they did, on Mt. Pastrik, they got a dose of vitamin B-52. As to the KLA calling in air strikes, considering we were bombing the KLA as well as the Serbs (Kosare, May 22), it's not too well delineated how closely we were working with the KLA in the field.

The problem with evaluating the efficacy of our airstrikes on Serb tactical units remains the lack of access to military records from the Serbian side - Serbia has not to this day put together a meaningful accounting of her civilian casualties, much less her military losses. I note that researching the web will not help one determine the number of remaining Mig-29's in Serbia's inventory (I last tried 6 months ago), so the Serbs are still quite closed mouth about their losses during Allied Force - until they join the PfP and open their archives, the question of Serbia's military losses during Allied Force is going to remain a guessing game on one side and an exercise in concealment on the other.

The whole APC/Tank/Artillery argument overlooks the attacks on Serbia's logistical infrastructure, however, and attacks on transportation, POL, and communications targets are a more effective use of airpower than going after the end users in the field - we'll know the full story eventually, but until we do this topic is going to be the source of more smoke than heat.

Not true.

There were relatively few tanks/APC's destroyed; and the few that WERE in "depots" were the few that were destroyed.

Claiming that "immobile" items were rendered ineffective still doesn't destroy them.

Look at the Clinton administration cover-up and blatant military intimidation here (this Newsweek story has been printed here in FR several times!) as Clark and the White House suckers at the Pentagon re-wrote the truth until the Clintons' were satisfied.

But the left plays on ....