Michael Moore's letter to General Clark

[Rob Wilson]

The best time to measure a mans character is when he's under pressure. This thread sort of shows that Clark is a fucking moron.

No it doesn't! The course of events detailed in the News Report is as follows.

1. Russians are seen to send 200 Paratroopers with vehicles towards Pristina Airport to secure it awaiting mass Airborne reinforcments.

2. While they are still enroute Clark intends to decisively prevent them by sending an overwhelming force of Tanks and IFV's to reach the Airport First and block all runways whilst preventing the lightly armed and equipped forces from occupying it.

3. Before doing so he consults with the NATO Secretary General, who (after considering the political implications) not only approves the plan but confirms that Clark has the authority to do so.

4. General Jackson, cogniscent of the fact that he will have to work with Russian troops in the future after Clark has left shows that there is another longer term course of action available.

5. Recognising this Clark cancels his precious actions and follows Jacksons plan.

6. The transports were turned around in the air by Fighter intercepts and the Russians were given a role in KFOR under Jackson.

Now seeing as He made the correct Military decision, consulted with a political superior to find out about Political ramifications of his plan and to check he could do it. Then listened to, and implemented, an alternative plan put forward by a fellow General... I'm curious as to which part showed him to be a moron? Perhaps with your incisive political insight or great military experience you could show us exactly where he acted like a moron and why those actions were wrong?

Or perhaps you'd like to go back to barndoor mudslinging and attacks on people and situations you know nothing about.

[Rob Wilson]

Ok, I DO serve in the military as an officer.

Really, what service, Sir? Are you Bundewehr or BAOR/US serving in Germany? If you don't want to say on the Board, PM me.

Could a Mod delete one of my Double Posts above please?

[BoredShirtless]

The best time to measure a mans character is when he's under pressure. This thread sort of shows that Clark is a fucking moron.

Excuse me, but who the fuck do you think you are? What military did you serve with? How many wars have you fought in? How many armies and air forces have you commanded? I be interested to know this, seeing as you presume to call a well honored military commander with numerous distinctions a fucking moron. Or are you just another snot nosed fan boy who thinks his experience surfing military websites from his house makes him quite the military strategist.

Fuck off.

[BoredShirtless]

The best time to measure a mans character is when he's under pressure. This thread sort of shows that Clark is a fucking moron.

No it doesn't! The course of events detailed in the News Report is as follows.

1. Russians are seen to send 200 Paratroopers with vehicles towards Pristina Airport to secure it awaiting mass Airborne reinforcments.

2. While they are still enroute Clark intends to decisively prevent them by sending an overwhelming force of Tanks and IFV's to reach the Airport First and block all runways whilst preventing the lightly armed and equipped forces from occupying it.

Fine, so the Russians hadn't captured the airport at the time of Clark's "idea". But that doesn't change much, as he still wanted to solve a political fracas using force! Does that fucking mean anything to you? Or are you happy with waving it off, just because Jackson got his way? Clark's plan is why I'm calling him a moron. Anything else, like eventually agreeing with Jackson, is smoke and mirrors.

3. Before doing so he consults with the NATO Secretary General, who (after considering the political implications) not only approves the plan but confirms that Clark has the authority to do so.

4. General Jackson, cogniscent of the fact that he will have to work with Russian troops in the future after Clark has left shows that there is another longer term course of action available.

5. Recognising this Clark cancels his precious actions and follows Jacksons plan.

6. The transports were turned around in the air by Fighter intercepts and the Russians were given a role in KFOR under Jackson.

Now seeing as He made the correct Military decision,

After getting his head chewed off by Jackson:
"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''

If he wasn't a moron, he would have seen Jackson's POV quick smart and in a hurry. But he didn't. Maybe moron is the wrong word. Arrogant moron would be better.

consulted with a political superior to find out about Political ramifications of his plan and to check he could do it. Then listened to, and implemented, an alternative plan put forward by a fellow General... I'm curious as to which part showed him to be a moron?

His plan maybe? And the fact it had to be ripped from his clutching hands?

Perhaps with your incisive political insight or great military experience you could show us exactly where he acted like a moron and why those actions were wrong?

Stop being a snob. Attack my argument, not my lack of military or political experience.

Or perhaps you'd like to go back to barndoor mudslinging and attacks on people and situations you know nothing about.

Hey asshole. I had the fucking article in front of me. I know as much as you.

In summary. I am calling him a moron because he came up with a stupid plan that required force to solve a problem which, everyone but Clark apologists would admit, should have been tackled with diplomacy. But I guess Clark probably had a good excuse for wanting to block Russian troops and planes using tanks rather then diplomacy. Maybe you'd like to offer a reason on his behalf for his absolutely shithouse plan, and another reason for why he was so reluctant to drop it?

[Wicked Pilot]

Fuck off.

If you can go off and be more successful in life then General Clark, including commanding an army to victory, then I will do just that. Until then, why don't you go outside and play hide and go fuck yourself you little shit. Besides the fact that you have yet to show that Clark's actions were wrong, you have yet to show that he as a whole person is a fucking moron, much less simply a moron. I frankly would love to see how you would do as a general officer, considering how you presume to have the ability to write OPRs for a man you have never met, and know little about.

[PzGren]

@BoredShirtless:
Do you know the possible outcome, IF the russians had been able to land reinforcements? Do you think, every problem can be solved WITHOUT force? If so, welcome to the real world! Saddam didn't give in to the politic pressure of the United Nations. Why should Russia even think of a diplomatic solution, if they have the balance of power tilt in their favor?
Reading articles is nice, but you have to take a look at the background, too. That was what i referred to speaking of having to know all variables.

[Rob Wilson]

The best time to measure a mans character is when he's under pressure. This thread sort of shows that Clark is a fucking moron.

No it doesn't! The course of events detailed in the News Report is as follows.

1. Russians are seen to send 200 Paratroopers with vehicles towards Pristina Airport to secure it awaiting mass Airborne reinforcments.

2. While they are still enroute Clark intends to decisively prevent them by sending an overwhelming force of Tanks and IFV's to reach the Airport First and block all runways whilst preventing the lightly armed and equipped forces from occupying it.

Fine, so the Russians hadn't captured the airport at the time of Clark's "idea". But that doesn't change much, as he still wanted to solve a political fracas using force! Does that fucking mean anything to you? Or are you happy with waving it off, just because Jackson got his way? Clark's plan is why I'm calling him a moron. Anything else, like eventually agreeing with Jackson, is smoke and mirrors.

No he was stopping a Military force with a military force and had consulted his Political Superiors as to the Politacla ramifications beforehand. All of this was outlined above, are you're inabilities to conmprehend the written word that bad or were you 'Skimming' again?

So far the only one playing smoke an mirrors here is you, as the situation is very clear and there was no reason in there to call General Clark a Moron. You have yet to show any reason for doing so other than to stir things up and sling mud.

3. Before doing so he consults with the NATO Secretary General, who (after considering the political implications) not only approves the plan but confirms that Clark has the authority to do so.

4. General Jackson, cogniscent of the fact that he will have to work with Russian troops in the future after Clark has left shows that there is another longer term course of action available.

5. Recognising this Clark cancels his precious actions and follows Jacksons plan.

6. The transports were turned around in the air by Fighter intercepts and the Russians were given a role in KFOR under Jackson.

Now seeing as He made the correct Military decision,

After getting his head chewed off by Jackson:
"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''

If he wasn't a moron, he would have seen Jackson's POV quick smart and in a hurry. But he didn't. Maybe moron is the wrong word. Arrogant moron would be better.

You will note that the first quote is hearsay, and so has no backing. In the Programme itself there was no mention of tension between the two - Jackson contacted Clark and pointed out the second quote, and outlined a second plan. Clark thought it over and Accepted it.

You are basing your entire argumaent now on hearsay? The second quote only shows that Clark was willing to listen to others and implement their idea's. Which part of that shows him to be a Moron?

consulted with a political superior to find out about Political ramifications of his plan and to check he could do it. Then listened to, and implemented, an alternative plan put forward by a fellow General... I'm curious as to which part showed him to be a moron?

His plan maybe? And the fact it had to be ripped from his clutching hands?

Your implication, based on Hearsay evidence and not backed by actual events. The only one loking like a moron here is you.

Perhaps with your incisive political insight or great military experience you could show us exactly where he acted like a moron and why those actions were wrong?

Stop being a snob. Attack my argument, not my lack of military or political experience.

Who's being a snob? You are assessing a man as a moron based on his Military and political actions. Your comments on the subject show you lacking in any ability to assess either from a position of Expertise. You have been shown clearly where you're assessment was wrong and yet you call a person a snob for expecting you to show some level of comprehension before passing judgement on a matter.

You have every right to state your opinion on the man and the matter, but then I have every right to show you why you are wrong and to expect some form of understanding on the subject from someone before they start passing judgement. You are being asked to show your Politaical and Military knowledge as you need those things to comment intelligently and expertly on the situation - the fact that something so basic has to be explained to you just makes you look a more likely candidate for being called a moron.

I have shown you why your assessment was incorrect. Either take your statement back or give a reasoned response showing why your statement should be considered correct.

Or perhaps you'd like to go back to barndoor mudslinging and attacks on people and situations you know nothing about.

Hey asshole. I had the fucking article in front of me. I know as much as you.

Actually it would appear you know considerably less, on top of which you demonstrate a clear inability to properly assess a News statement and distinguish Hearsay from Direct testimony.

In summary. I am calling him a moron because he came up with a stupid plan that required force to solve a problem which, everyone but Clark apologists would admit, should have been tackled with diplomacy.

Once again, show us exactly why it was stupid. The 500 Tanks and IFV's were more than enough to cow the 200 paratroopers into leaving without a fight and the Transports would have been unable to land.

Why Militarily was it stupid? Also could you explain in detail why it was Politically stupid when the Secretary General of NATO (a career politician), OK'ed it.

But I guess Clark probably had a good excuse for wanting to block Russian troops and planes using tanks rather then diplomacy. Maybe you'd like to offer a reason on his behalf for his absolutely shithouse plan, and another reason for why he was so reluctant to drop it?

How were they stopped with Diplomacy? Infact how were they Stopped? Do tell, what was the diplomnatic solution used? How was use of force avoided (remembering the Transports were turned away by Fighter Intercepts)?

So how was the matter resolved? Do you even know, or are you still out to stir things up with little or no understanding of what actually occurred.

[BoredShirtless]

Fuck off.

If you can go off and be more successful in life then General Clark, including commanding an army to victory, then I will do just that. Until then, why don't you go outside and play hide and go fuck yourself you little shit.

It's time to grow up asshole. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and guess what, this one has nothing to do with my life and measuring it to Clarks. Attacking my character is just pathetic. Don't be such a weakling.

Besides the fact that you have yet to show that Clark's actions were wrong,

His plan asshole! What the fuck is it with you and Rob? Can't you fucking read?

you have yet to show that he as a whole person is a fucking moron, much less simply a moron.

Yeah I have *points to plan*.

I frankly would love to see how you would do as a general officer, considering how you presume to have the ability to write OPRs for a man you have never met, and know little about.

So now I have to meet the man before critisising his public plan? You're a joke.

[Rob Wilson]

If you can go off and be more successful in life then General Clark, including commanding an army to victory, then I will do just that. Until then, why don't you go outside and play hide and go fuck yourself you little shit.

It's time to grow up asshole. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and guess what, this one has nothing to do with my life and measuring it to Clarks. Attacking my character is just pathetic. Don't be such a weakling.

But your entire first post on the matter was an attack on Clarks character, so are you admitting you're a weakling? And yes you are entitled to your opinion, that you still hold it after being shown that it was formed using an incorrect interpretation of events bodes ill for anyone ever bothering to listen to you in the future. You called Clark an Arrogant Moron when you incorrectly thought he had held onto an opinion after being shown it was wrong. Therefore by your standards we can judge you as the same.

Besides the fact that you have yet to show that Clark's actions were wrong,

His plan asshole! What the fuck is it with you and Rob? Can't you fucking read?

Yes we can, we are also in a position to judge his plan militarily and correctly detail what it consisted of. I've asked you before and I'll ask you again, what is so wrong with his plan that it demonstrates him to be a Moron? Where is your detailed analysis of events and the plan he had? what expertise do you have to pass judgement on his plan?

you have yet to show that he as a whole person is a fucking moron, much less simply a moron.

Yeah I have *points to plan*.

The militarily sound plan to deal with the situation? That plan? But that shows he has a sound grasp of both his forces strengths and his enemies weakness's, plus a strategic understanding of the situation at hand. Infact what was the replacement plan and how did it differ from his? Why was his plan the sign of a Moron?

I frankly would love to see how you would do as a general officer, considering how you presume to have the ability to write OPRs for a man you have never met, and know little about.

So now I have to meet the man before critisising his public plan? You're a joke.

No he's saying that you are presuming to pass judgement on the mans Character without having met him. Once more, give us a breakdown as to where and why his plan was so bad. Show us you actually know what it entailed before you comment on whether it was the right plan for the situation and how it showed Clark to be a Moron. If you cannot then take back what you said about him and admit you were wrong.

[PzGren]

You, of course know, what led to the situation?
You know, that Russia wanted an own part of Kosovo?
You know, that russian troops shouldn't be under NATO command?
You know, that Russia announced, they would fly in thousends of troops with heavy equipment?
You know, that media can be biased???

[Tsyroc]

Fine, so the Russians hadn't captured the airport at the time of Clark's "idea". But that doesn't change much, as he still wanted to solve a political fracas using force!

Isn't that the point of most wars, solving political problems through military force?

In this instance it was solved by moving troops. Clarks plan would likely have solved it in NATO's favor by just moving his forces to where the Russians wanted to be. Would there have been more political fall out if that had happend, probably. That would be why Armstrong was so against it not because he really thought they were going to start WWIII.

This kind of crap happened all the time in various scales during the Cold War. The Berlin Airlift comes to mind.

Does that fucking mean anything to you? Or are you happy with waving it off, just because Jackson got his way? Clark's plan is why I'm calling him a moron. Anything else, like eventually agreeing with Jackson, is smoke and mirrors.

Actually, I don't know that he agreed with Jackson but he did stand down when his orders changed just like he was supposed to.

After getting his head chewed off by Jackson:
"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

I thought you might have got hung up on that quote. Considering all that we've seen of their conversation is this "quote" and the statement that there were some heated arguments we don't know jack about what was said between the two Generals. For all we know that statement could have been joking hyperbole nearly as easilly as it could have been part of an ass reaming. Basically that quote is in the article because it gets your attention and in doing so tries to get you to watch the documentary.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''

Now that's a good quote. It clearly states General Jackson's pov and sugggests that he probably helped convince someone on the political end that the potential long term relationship with Russia was more important than some pissing contest over whether the Russians would be allowed
to help adminsiter Kosovo.

His plan maybe? And the fact it had to be ripped from his clutching hands?

Got that from the article did you?

I doubt he was that in love with his plan. Maybe he did not like the Russians or the idea of the Russians circumventing NATO's plans to keep them out of Kosovo. I can't say that I entirely blame him since Russia has always had a peculiar relationship with countries in that part of the world.

In summary. I am calling him a moron because he came up with a stupid plan that required force to solve a problem which, everyone but Clark apologists would admit, should have been tackled with diplomacy. But I guess Clark probably had a good excuse for wanting to block Russian troops and planes using tanks rather then diplomacy. Maybe you'd like to offer a reason on his behalf for his absolutely shithouse plan, and another reason for why he was so reluctant to drop it?

In that case you should be bitching about whoever it was in NATO that made the political decision not to include the Russians because after that decision was made it was Clark's *job* to implement/enforce that decision. If he had been told to let the Russians have the field and still gone ahead with the plan you'd have plenty of reason to call him names but the whole time, including standing down from his plan, he was doing his job.

[BoredShirtless]

Fine, so the Russians hadn't captured the airport at the time of Clark's "idea". But that doesn't change much, as he still wanted to solve a political fracas using force! Does that fucking mean anything to you? Or are you happy with waving it off, just because Jackson got his way? Clark's plan is why I'm calling him a moron. Anything else, like eventually agreeing with Jackson, is smoke and mirrors.

No he was stopping a Military force with a military force and had consulted his Political Superiors as to the Politacla ramifications beforehand. All of this was outlined above, are you're inabilities to conmprehend the written word that bad or were you 'Skimming' again?

That's an Appeal to Authority, I don't care who he consulted. His idea was crap. Do you agree, yes or no?

So far the only one playing smoke an mirrors here is you, as the situation is very clear and there was no reason in there to call General Clark a Moron. You have yet to show any reason for doing so other than to stir things up and sling mud.

Quoting me:
This thread sort of shows that Clark is a fucking moron.

Notice that? That's called an "opinion", and it just so happens it can be backed up by fact. Therefore it's not "mud slinging".

After getting his head chewed off by Jackson:
"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''

If he wasn't a moron, he would have seen Jackson's POV quick smart and in a hurry. But he didn't. Maybe moron is the wrong word. Arrogant moron would be better.

You will note that the first quote is hearsay, and so has no backing.

Yeah ok.

In the Programme itself there was no mention of tension between the two - Jackson contacted Clark and pointed out the second quote, and outlined a second plan. Clark thought it over and Accepted it.

I haven't seen the program, so I won't argue your interpretation of it.

You are basing your entire argumaent now on hearsay?

Yeah right My entire argument rests on the first quote....are you paying attention? My argument, for the nth time, rests on his goddamn plan.

The second quote only shows that Clark was willing to listen to others and implement their idea's. Which part of that shows him to be a Moron?

The second quote is there to give you Jacksons opinion. You didn't need it, but I pasted it anyway.

His plan maybe? And the fact it had to be ripped from his clutching hands?

Your implication, based on Hearsay evidence and not backed by actual events. The only one loking like a moron here is you.

Believe me, I'm perfectly happy to let the "clutching bit" go and give my opinion of him just by his plan.

Stop being a snob. Attack my argument, not my lack of military or political experience.

Who's being a snob? You are assessing a man as a moron based on his Military and political actions.

No shit sherlock, that's the context we're in. How else would you judge him? Through his fashion sense?

Your comments on the subject show you lacking in any ability to assess either from a position of Expertise. You have been shown clearly where you're assessment was wrong and yet you call a person a snob for expecting you to show some level of comprehension before passing judgement on a matter.

You've just showed that the first quote is Hearsey. Woop dee doo da.

You have every right to state your opinion on the man and the matter, but then I have every right to show you why you are wrong and to expect some form of understanding on the subject from someone before they start passing judgement. You are being asked to show your Politaical and Military knowledge as you need those things to comment intelligently and expertly on the situation - the fact that something so basic has to be explained to you just makes you look a more likely candidate for being called a moron.

More lame elitist bullshit centered around the Hearsey quote. Try tackling the meat of my position: his plan.

I have shown you why your assessment was incorrect. Either take your statement back or give a reasoned response showing why your statement should be considered correct.

Take my statement back? Are you for fucking real? Who do you think you've fooled by latching onto the Hearsey quote? Address the plan asshole!

Actually it would appear you know considerably less, on top of which you demonstrate a clear inability to properly assess a News statement and distinguish Hearsay from Direct testimony.

Again with that Hearsey quote. Ride it and ride it, till you faint with exhaustion. It's all you've got.

In summary. I am calling him a moron because he came up with a stupid plan that required force to solve a problem which, everyone but Clark apologists would admit, should have been tackled with diplomacy.

Once again, show us exactly why it was stupid. The 500 Tanks and IFV's were more than enough to cow the 200 paratroopers into leaving without a fight and the Transports would have been unable to land.

Are you sure? Diplomacy should have been suggested, because although they may have been cowered to leave, like you said, the Russians were planning to be involved anyway. You don't piss your future partners off like that, especially over a fucking airport. And who really gives a fuck who managed the airport. In the end, you're all going to be working together.

Clark being a General doesn't absolve him of tackling problems with diplomacy.

Why Militarily was it stupid?

Because the political fallout would have gummed up the works, and it may have provoked the Russians into using force to reply to force.

Also could you explain in detail why it was Politically stupid when the Secretary General of NATO (a career politician), OK'ed it.

Another Appeal to Authority. Would it surprise you to know I think Javier Solana is a fucking moron too? I hope that doesn't offend your sensibilities. Any idiot who gives a green light to a military maneuver against a future partner is a goddamn fucking moron! Especially when he's a career politician. Jesus.

How were they stopped with Diplomacy? Infact how were they Stopped? Do tell, what was the diplomnatic solution used? How was use of force avoided (remembering the Transports were turned away by Fighter Intercepts)?

Is your brain on vacation or something? Do you think they resolved the situation using the Intercepters only?

So how was the matter resolved? Do you even know, or are you still out to stir things up with little or no understanding of what actually occurred.

The Russians eventually let the airport go. It was diplomacy which made them do it. Or did those Interceptors "cower" the Russian government all by themselves? The fact is, Clark's plan would have escalated the situation. That's stupid, for so many reason:

1. They were future partners with NATO
2. Could have provoked the Russian paratroopers
3. Why take the risk of definite political fallout and a potential military clash over a fucking airport? With your partners even!

Dumb plan. Stupid plan. Clark is a moron. That's my opinion, and unless you can somehow change facts out of thin air, I won't be taking it back.

[BoredShirtless]

But your entire first post on the matter was an attack on Clarks character, so are you admitting you're a weakling?

The difference between WP critisising my character and me critisisng Clarks is down to the way we attacked. WP simply bullshitted about how I'm not Clark, while I'm forming mine on the mans plan.

And yes you are entitled to your opinion, that you still hold it after being shown that it was formed using an incorrect interpretation of events bodes ill for anyone ever bothering to listen to you in the future.

The Hearsey quote. Idiot.

You called Clark an Arrogant Moron when you incorrectly thought he had held onto an opinion after being shown it was wrong. Therefore by your standards we can judge you as the same.

Hearsey quote. Again. You're a moron.

His plan asshole! What the fuck is it with you and Rob? Can't you fucking read?

Yes we can, we are also in a position to judge his plan militarily and correctly detail what it consisted of. I've asked you before and I'll ask you again, what is so wrong with his plan that it demonstrates him to be a Moron? Where is your detailed analysis of events and the plan he had? what expertise do you have to pass judgement on his plan?

Answered in my post before this one.

Yeah I have *points to plan*.

The militarily sound plan to deal with the situation?

Get out of here! You think Clarks plan was actually sound?

That plan? But that shows he has a sound grasp of both his forces strengths and his enemies weakness's, plus a strategic understanding of the situation at hand. Infact what was the replacement plan and how did it differ from his? Why was his plan the sign of a Moron?

Blah blah. It amazes me that in your first post, you outlined the problem with his plan by saying it was short sighted as Jackson was planning to manage the Russians. But now, you're going into bat for it. That's an impressive backpeddle.

ENEMIES weakness! The Russians were your ENEMY?! That's the problem here, with both Clarks plan and your defense of it. The Russians were NOT your damn enemy! It was the Serbians, in case you need a little refresher.

So now I have to meet the man before critisising his public plan? You're a joke.

No he's saying that you are presuming to pass judgement on the mans Character without having met him. Once more, give us a breakdown as to where and why his plan was so bad. Show us you actually know what it entailed before you comment on whether it was the right plan for the situation and how it showed Clark to be a Moron. If you cannot then take back what you said about him and admit you were wrong.

See previous post.

[BoredShirtless]

Fine, so the Russians hadn't captured the airport at the time of Clark's "idea". But that doesn't change much, as he still wanted to solve a political fracas using force!

Isn't that the point of most wars, solving political problems through military force?

Do you honestly think it's a good idea to solve political problems with the Russians using military force? Remembering, that NATO was in war against the Serbians, not the Russians? Isn't that how world wars sort of start? More and more countries getting involved?

In this instance it was solved by moving troops. Clarks plan would likely have solved it in NATO's favor by just moving his forces to where the Russians wanted to be. Would there have been more political fall out if that had happend, probably. That would be why Armstrong was so against it not because he really thought they were going to start WWIII.

This kind of crap happened all the time in various scales during the Cold War. The Berlin Airlift comes to mind.

Right. More political fallout. Stupid plan.

I thought you might have got hung up on that quote. Considering all that we've seen of their conversation is this "quote" and the statement that there were some heated arguments we don't know jack about what was said between the two Generals. For all we know that statement could have been joking hyperbole nearly as easilly as it could have been part of an ass reaming. Basically that quote is in the article because it gets your attention and in doing so tries to get you to watch the documentary.

Yeah, fine. I don't care. That hearsey quote has jackshit to do with the actual plan.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.'' [/u]

Now that's a good quote. It clearly states General Jackson's pov and sugggests that he probably helped convince someone on the political end that the potential long term relationship with Russia was more important than some pissing contest over whether the Russians would be allowed
to help adminsiter Kosovo.

Yes, agreed, Jackson is not a moron.

His plan maybe? And the fact it had to be ripped from his clutching hands?

Got that from the article did you?

Nah. A bit of rhetoric doesn't hurt anyone, eh?

I doubt he was that in love with his plan. Maybe he did not like the Russians or the idea of the Russians circumventing NATO's plans to keep them out of Kosovo. I can't say that I entirely blame him since Russia has always had a peculiar relationship with countries in that part of the world.

I don't want to go off topic here, but what do you mean by "peculiar"? The Serbians and Russians are both Orthodox Christians, and basically the same people. What's so strange about having a bond between the two?

In summary. I am calling him a moron because he came up with a stupid plan that required force to solve a problem which, everyone but Clark apologists would admit, should have been tackled with diplomacy. But I guess Clark probably had a good excuse for wanting to block Russian troops and planes using tanks rather then diplomacy. Maybe you'd like to offer a reason on his behalf for his absolutely shithouse plan, and another reason for why he was so reluctant to drop it?

In that case you should be bitching about whoever it was in NATO that made the political decision not to include the Russians because after that decision was made it was Clark's *job* to implement/enforce that decision.

It's my job to write software applications. Does that mean I'm free of critisism about the quality of my work, just because I'm doing my job?

If he had been told to let the Russians have the field and still gone ahead with the plan you'd have plenty of reason to call him names but the whole time, including standing down from his plan, he was doing his job.

I'm not calling him a moron because he was doing his job. It's the way he did his job, which I'm going by.

[Trytostaydead]

I do not see what was moronic about Clark's plan. This is what I gathered:

1) Russia thought it would get it's own little section in Kosovo and not answerable to NATO command
2) NATO thought otherwise and excluded Russia from KFOR
3) Russia suprised NATO by landing 200 paratroopers
4) Russia was planning on deploying a hell of a lot more troops
5) Clark, phoned the general secretary and got confirmation that he was to take the airport.
6) Jackson, weary that he'll be the one left holding the hat after Clark leaves strongly objects to this course of action.
7) More wheel-dealing is done and now Russia operates sections not directly under NATO authority.

Personally, I don't think BoredShirtless's arguments above really hold water and you guys are just hashing it out now in a cock fight. Boredshirtless, Russia used military force first actually. A surprise deployment of paratroopers to hold the ground to ensure they can land a hell of a lot more troops does say a lot, doesn't it?

Clark, a military commander is told his objective is the airport. I agree, we could've sent our diplomats to pound their paratroopers with their briefcases and line the runways (Russian paratroopers are supposed to be really tough cookies), but I think Clark's way would've been more effective. If those troops have been able to land, diplomacy would've been more greatly stacked in THEIR favor and they would've gotten their partition. And we all remember what that did to Germany.

The Cuban missile crisis comes to mind. While it was ultimately solved by diplomatic means, as was this incident, it required a military cordon to stop more incoming missiles and tell the Russians that we meant business and to get the fuck out of there.

[Tsyroc]

Do you honestly think it's a good idea to solve political problems with the Russians using military force? Remembering, that NATO was in war against the Serbians, not the Russians? Isn't that how world wars sort of start? More and more countries getting involved?

Good point.

I do think they both had enough sense to back off. If Clark had followed through with his plan I think the Russians would have backed off. I think it worked out better by not keeping the Russians out.

Right. More political fallout. Stupid plan.

At that point I don't think there was a way that Clark could keep the Russian's out and not pick up more political fallout. Everyone was moving too fast towards goals that weren't compatable.

I don't want to go off topic here, but what do you mean by "peculiar"? The Serbians and Russians are both Orthodox Christians, and basically the same people. What's so strange about having a bond between the two?

I guess I've just never quite got a firm understanding on when/how/why Russia will act within the area and in certain instances why they don't or are reluctant to act. That's all I meant.

It's my job to write software applications. Does that mean I'm free of critisism about the quality of my work, just because I'm doing my job?

I see what you're saying and I agree with you on that point but I guess I just don't see the General's plan as being bad in of itself. The situation was bad certainly but that started before anything the article covers but I don't see what he could have done to deny the Russians the field without causing at least some political fallout.

Do you think instead of planning to stop the Russians Clark should have been trying to convince the politicos to change their minds and let the Russian's have the field, and let them be involved in adminstering Kosovo?

I'm not calling him a moron because he was doing his job. It's the way he did his job, which I'm going by.

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that one. I don't particularly like him (I am interested in seeing more about him as a canidate) but I don't see him doing anything in that article to warrant being labled a moron. Now before that....well I wouldn't know.

If he's going to try for the Democratic nomination for President of the US he'll have plenty of time to prove things one way or the other.

[Edi]

BoredShirtless, you're not doing yourself any favors trying to continue your argument with Rob, as he has utterly demolished your argument.

You're claiming a military plan with military goals that would have worked unsound because it would have caused political fallout, but there was going to be more or less political fallout no matter what was or would have been done. It might help you to know that the Russians were playing a game of chicken with that stunt of theirs and they would have gone ahead and made their bluff a real play if NATO hadn't stood up to them. They chose a plan other than Clark's, but even that would have worked.

You've ignored every argument Rob has made against you where he demonstrates why the Clark plan would not have been a failure and was sound considering its parameters and objectives, and you keep bleating that your arguments are based on his plan, yet it was like squeezing blood out of a stone to actually get them from you, and they are not nearly as strong as you seem to think. Tsyroc addressed the good parts about them, and there seems to be agreement that the ultimate outcome was better than Clark's plan would have provided, but his plan would also have worked, just not as well.

The ultimate sticking point at that time was also that despite Russia's tough talk and the seeming importance they put on Serbia, as demonstrated by their backing Slobodan Milosevic as long as they did, they simpoly could not completely antagonize the US and the rest of western Europe. As bad as the political fallout would have been for the West, the political and economic fallout for them would have been many times worse.

You don't have much of a case, and if you want to continue making a moron out of yourself, be my guest, but don't get all huffy when you're smacked down. The people here don't take hostages in these debates, but figuratively shoot to kill on sight of a bad argument, no matter who makes it, and you're making one now.

Edi

[BoredShirtless]

BoredShirtless, you're not doing yourself any favors trying to continue your argument with Rob, as he has utterly demolished your argument.

You're claiming a military plan with military goals that would have worked unsound because it would have caused political fallout, but there was going to be more or less political fallout no matter what was or would have been done.

I see. So just because any plan would have made political fallout, we can't judge them to be "unsound"? What kind of bullshit is that?

It might help you to know that the Russians were playing a game of chicken with that stunt of theirs and they would have gone ahead and made their bluff a real play if NATO hadn't stood up to them.

How do you know they were playing chicken? The Kremlin said they wouldn't be taking the airport, but the troops did. So how exactly can you be so sure of the game they were playing?

They chose a plan other than Clark's, but even that would have worked.

You don't know that.

I earlier conceeded to Rob that the Russians were not at the airport when Clark ordered the British tanks on the runway. But that was a concession I shouldn't have made. You'll find out soon enough what I'm talking about.

You've ignored every argument Rob has made against you where he demonstrates why the Clark plan would not have been a failure and was sound considering its parameters and objectives,

Are you for real? I ignored every argument Rob made...like what? I have also shown why Clarks plan is not sound. And the fact it was eventually ignored should sort of tell you it wasn't sound anyway. But if you think it was a sound plan, go ahead and show me why.

and you keep bleating that your arguments are based on his plan, yet it was like squeezing blood out of a stone to actually get them from you, and they are not nearly as strong as you seem to think.

What do you mean? How was it like squeezing blood from a stone? And how was I bleating?

Tsyroc addressed the good parts about them, and there seems to be agreement that the ultimate outcome was better than Clark's plan would have provided, but his plan would also have worked, just not as well.

Again, we do not know if his plan would have worked. Even if it did, it looks like we all agree that it would have generated more political fallout, and a possible military clash. IMO, the plan was crap, and Clark is a moron for suggesting it.

The ultimate sticking point at that time was also that despite Russia's tough talk and the seeming importance they put on Serbia, as demonstrated by their backing Slobodan Milosevic as long as they did, they simpoly could not completely antagonize the US and the rest of western Europe. As bad as the political fallout would have been for the West, the political and economic fallout for them would have been many times worse.

That's rational. But I'd argue things which start wars aren't very rational. I mean, who would have thought assassinating two people would spark a world war? Does that seem rational to you?

You don't have much of a case, and if you want to continue making a moron out of yourself, be my guest, but don't get all huffy when you're smacked down.

I haven't been smaked down Edi. This is the first time you and I are talking, and to be honest, I'm getting a little pissed off with your colourful analogies. If you got upset because I called Rob a moron, know this. I don't like snobs who shove their military experience in my face like it even matters.

The people here don't take hostages in these debates, but figuratively shoot to kill on sight of a bad argument, no matter who makes it, and you're making one now.

Shutup you drama Queen.

Well well well. Look what I just found. From http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/990 ... son.clark/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark, who is stepping down early as NATO supreme commander, clashed with British commander Gen. Mike Jackson over how to react to the movement of Russian forces in Kosovo after the alliance's victory there, sources say.

Pentagon and NATO sources told CNN that Clark ordered Jackson, the commander of NATO ground forces in Kosovo, to dispatch helicopters to take control of Pristina's airport before the Russians arrived June 12.

Jackson reportedly favored a less confrontational approach and was slow to relay Clark's orders. As a result, Apache helicopters were unable to reach the airport because of bad weather.

After the Russians took control of one end of the airport, Pentagon sources say Clark ordered Jackson to move British tanks onto the runway to prevent Russia from flying in reinforcements.

This time, Jackson delayed while he sought political guidance from London. Clark also appealed to political leaders in Washington for support, the U.S. magazine Newsweek reported Sunday.

Clark's orders were never carried out. "I'm not going to start World War III for you," Jackson is quoted in Newsweek as telling Clark after the incident.


Reports: Jackson won standoff

Pentagon officials told CNN that while NATO members are under the command of the supreme allied commander, they also have the right to refuse orders not in their national interest.

NATO's 19 members operate by consensus and any one country can veto a decision.

Pentagon officials said that the British government wanted to avoid a military confrontation over what was essentially a diplomatic dispute with the Russians.

The airport standoff was ultimately resolved when NATO and Moscow, a traditional ally of the Serbs, agreed that the Russians would not have their own peacekeeping sector in Kosovo.

Instead, Russian peacekeepers were dispatched to the American, French and British sectors of the province.


Clark denies reports

During his weekly visit to Kosovo on Monday, Clark denied news reports of conflict between himself and Jackson over the Russian incident, or any other.

"I haven't seen (that) any of the reports are particularly accurate thus far," Clark said. "I have total confidence in Mike Jackson. We have a really good working relationship, and I think he's doing a brilliant job down there in Kosovo."

Clark will step down as NATO supreme commander three months early on orders from Washington. He will retire in April, rather than July of next year, to make room for Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, now the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Clark, considered brilliant but arrogant and brusque, described the move as routine, as did the White House and the Pentagon.

"All of us at NATO believe Gen. Clark has been outstanding ... winning very decisively the air operation in Kosovo," Pentagon spokesman Jamie Shea said last week.


I was stupid to conceed to Rob that the Russians were not already at the airport when Clark ordered British tanks to block the runway. They were.

I see the Russians were already there. So was it still a sound plan Edi?

[BoredShirtless]

The best time to measure a mans character is when he's under pressure. This thread sort of shows that Clark is a fucking moron.

No it doesn't! The course of events detailed in the News Report is as follows.

1. Russians are seen to send 200 Paratroopers with vehicles towards Pristina Airport to secure it awaiting mass Airborne reinforcments.

2. While they are still enroute Clark intends to decisively prevent them by sending an overwhelming force of Tanks and IFV's to reach the Airport First and block all runways whilst preventing the lightly armed and equipped forces from occupying it.

Fine, so the Russians hadn't captured the airport at the time of Clark's "idea".

I'm taking this back. You're wrong, the Russians were already there. See my post to Edi for the CNN article which states that fact.

[PzGren]

Do you even read what is posted here?
The Russians intended to bring in THOUSENDS of reinforcements, along with heavy weapons!

[BoredShirtless]

Do you even read what is posted here?
The Russians intended to bring in THOUSENDS of reinforcements, along with heavy weapons!

So?

[Vympel]

I agree with BoredShirtless- it was a stupid plan- it would've taken one idiot on either side to fire off a shot for that contingent to go ape.

I'd also point out that it's no guarantee that the Il-76s would've needed to land- they were probably VDV troops- in which case they would've paradropped onto the airfield, along with their airdroppable BMD fighting vehicles.

[Tsyroc]

I agree with BoredShirtless- it was a stupid plan- it would've taken one idiot on either side to fire off a shot for that contingent to go ape.

And, that kind of situation happened all the time during the Cold War and both sides were generally pretty good at keeping things under control. Yes it would be tense but NATO and the Russians had a long history of screwing with each other in what could be taken as very dangerous ways.

So what plan should have Clark had to keep the Russians out and make sure that no one fired at anyone? I know, how about we put a bunch of obsticles in the runway so they can't land and maybe get the hint that we are serious about them not being here. Now what do we have around that could be quickly moved to block the runway and send the definate signal that they were put there by NATO? I know tanks. Unless someone really goes ape shit they aren't likely to hurt someone in the tank and the guys in the tanks aren't as likely to go ape shit since they are more protected than regular soldiers.

Yep it was a stupid plan. The Russians zipping into the airport ahead of NATO after they'd been told they weren't going to be involved in administering Kosovo. What were they thinking? They risked starting a war just so they could be involved in Kosovo, or do you think they figured it wouldn't go as far as a war? If that was the case then maybe it wasn't so stupid since they got their way.

If things were so tense that Clark's plan was stupid then the initial run in by the Russians was just as stupid and perhaps more so for the same reasons.

I'd also point out that it's no guarantee that the Il-76s would've needed to land- they were probably VDV troops- in which case they would've paradropped onto the airfield, along with their airdroppable BMD fighting vehicles.

While they may have been able to do it do you really think the Russians wanted in there bad enough that they would have airdropped their troops and vehicles after spotting a bunch of British tanks in the way?

I understand they were pissed about being left out but pushing it that far goes a bit beyond forcing the issue. I think a stunt like that would have caused a lot of problems, a lot of them for the Russians.

[Vympel]

And, that kind of situation happened all the time during the Cold War and both sides were generally pretty good at keeping things under control. Yes it would be tense but NATO and the Russians had a long history of screwing with each other in what could be taken as very dangerous ways.

Yes, but was there ever a situation where both forces found themselves within a few metres of each other, contesting ownership of a piece of territory?

So what plan should have Clark had to keep the Russians out and make sure that no one fired at anyone? I know, how about we put a bunch of obsticles in the runway so they can't land and maybe get the hint that we are serious about them not being here. Now what do we have around that could be quickly moved to block the runway and send the definate signal that they were put there by NATO? I know tanks. Unless someone really goes ape shit they aren't likely to hurt someone in the tank and the guys in the tanks aren't as likely to go ape shit since they are more protected than regular soldiers.

Sending in tanks unsupported would've been folly. The Russian troops almost certainly had AT-4b and AT-7/13 ATGMs on them. I doubt they would've taken that chance. If it was their job to possess the airfield (and it was), they wouldn't have taken kindly to British tanks imposing themselves on it.

Yep it was a stupid plan. The Russians zipping into the airport ahead of NATO after they'd been told they weren't going to be involved in administering Kosovo. What were they thinking? They risked starting a war just so they could be involved in Kosovo, or do you think they figured it wouldn't go as far as a war? If that was the case then maybe it wasn't so stupid since they got their way.

I found it quite daring, actually- if they had gone in after, I would've found it stupid.

If things were so tense that Clark's plan was stupid then the initial run in by the Russians was just as stupid and perhaps more so for the same reasons.

Except that in the Russians case there were no opposing forces.

While they may have been able to do it do you really think the Russians wanted in there bad enough that they would have airdropped their troops and vehicles after spotting a bunch of British tanks in the way?

That's unlikey, but it shouldn't be ruled out- another possibility is landing in Serbia proper and driving.

I understand they were pissed about being left out but pushing it that far goes a bit beyond forcing the issue. I think a stunt like that would have caused a lot of problems, a lot of them for the Russians.

But it was a great stunt, nonetheless

[MKSheppard]

I be interested to know this, seeing as you presume to call a well honored military commander with numerous distinctions a fucking moron.

Clark's an asshole. I've read several op eds on him, and the general
consensus on Clark is that he improved the army by leaving it.