EmergencyNet News Editorial/Opinion

03/30/99 - 13:00CST

Are Ground Troops Necessary in Kosovo?

By C. L. Staten, ERRI Sr. National Security Analyst

A controversy is raging along the hallways of power in both Washington and Brussels, Belgium. It is a conflict about the policy of whether or not to deploy NATO ground troops to stop the allegedly wide-spread "ethnic cleansing" in the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia.

Many messages about this debate have been sent to EmergencyNet News by military officers and senior NCO's (non-commissioned officers) in recent days. These are people who have some very definite opinions about the effectiveness of the current air offensive in Serbia. And, certainly they are entitled to their comments, pro or con, about potential ground combat in Kosovo. After all, it is these men and women who would be required to go and confront any adversary in the Balkans.

An observer might, however, be surprised about the content of these messages. One would think that these military personnel would be completely opposed to placing American men and women at greater risk by placing them on the ground in the middle of ethnic conflict that has been raging, on and off, for 600 years. And to some extent, that is true...they do have some very legitimate concerns about why NATO forces are involved in what many experts and historians see as a "civil war" in Yugoslavia. There are also certainly those in the military that are unequivacably against further involvement in Kosovo. But, by far, a greater number of the messages we have received have advocated greater NATO involvement "on the ground" in Kosovo.

A reasonable and rational person would ask why? Why would anyone want to place themselves at greater risk in an attempt to intervene and bring peace to Kosovo? The answer that comes from the troops, time and time again, is that while the on-going bombing and cruise missile attacks may "degrade" Serbian military assets, they will not prevent additional massacres or expulsions of civilian women and children on the ground in Kosovo. In other words, these professional military personnel do not believe that air campaign will resolve any of the important issues that remain in Yugoslavia. They say that there is little sense in being involved at all in the region unless they are actually going to be allowed to "solve the problem."

Further, the troops, who often ask that they not be quoted directly or say that they are speaking on condition of anonymity, say that they have very real concerns about a widening of the conflict in Kosovo and that combat could easily spill over into Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia, or elsewhere in the region. Several speak about a "confused U.S. policy" in the Balkans that has led to current circumstances and that lacks a coherent strategy for the future.

Why the ambiguity in their statements, or requests that they not be identified, one might ask? Well, that's easy...it's because the administration in Washington has announced a policy that contradicts the "conventional wisdom of warriors" that says you can't win a war simply by dropping bombs. Many troops call the current strategy in Serbia a "feel good solution." They say that, while it may make some politicians feel good that they have "intervened" in Kosovo and shown their public support for the largely Moslem and ethnic Albanian population there -- but, that the campaign will have very little real and lasting impact on the problem -- if it is not carried through to its ultimate and potentially costly conclusion.

To understand the larger problem involving Serbia/Kosovo it is necessary to ask some important questions; "What is America's ultimate goal in Yugoslavia?" Is it to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo? Is it to topple Yugoslav strongman Milosevic? Is Milosevic likely to capitulate and agree to sign a peace agreement worked out in France, thus allowing NATO peacekeeping troops into his country? Or, is our goal to secure all of the borders in the Balkans and attempt to facilitate peace in that region?

In other words, what is the end outcome objective of American involvement? What is it we have set out to accomplish in the Balkans? Without a prominent and understandable answer to these essential questions and a comprehensive plan to accomplish the stated objectives, we must respectfully suggest that it is unlikely that the American people will continue to support U.S. participation in Yugoslavia for very long.

One senior officer, who has more than 25 years of service, told EmergencyNet News that Kosovo could easily become another "open sore" just like Iraq, that could be a continuing source of controversy and confrontation, continue to tie up thousands of troops, and cost billions of dollars -- unless the current campaign is carried through to a successful "end game." He lamented that the biggest problem that the military faces today is not recruiting, not funding, and not retention...it is a foreign policy that jumps from issue to issue, country to country, and only focuses on the immediate problem at hand. He said that a comprehensive review and reassessment of America's fragmentary overseas commitment to various conflicts is long overdue.

Most of all, Americans must not forget that our men and women serving our military in the Balkans, or in literally dozens of other "hell holes" throughout the world, deserve our complete and unconditional support...regardless of the mission that they are given by our political leadership. These brave warriors are an instrument of American policy, not the political decision-makers who are paid by the American people to assure our best interests.

We, at EmergencyNet News, certainly are opposed to "ethnic cleansing" of any kind and have great sympathy for any oppressed and brutalized minority, in any country. But, we also are aware of the limitations of the use of limited military power to affect diplomatic, political, ethnic or religious change.

Finally, it would be our observation that American and NATO troops shouldn't ever be committed to any conflict in which they are not going to be allowed to "win."   Half-way measures or diplomatic maneuvers disguised as a military campaign are not sufficiant and will probably not resolve the issues that are taking lives daily in Kosovo. If the situation is serious enough to warrant the use of military force, then "the gloves should come off," and military commanders should be authorized to use whatever force is necessary to accomplish an integrated and well thought through policy. To do less will undoubtedly place American interests and credibility at great risk in the longer term.

Emergency Response and Research Institute
6348 N Milwaukee Ave, Suite 312,
Chicago, Illinois 60646 USA
773-631-ERRI - Voice/Voice Mail
773-631-4703 - Fax
773-631-3467 - Computer/Modem - EMERGENCY BBS Internet
e-mail: webmaster@emergency.com
Main WWW page: http://www.emergency.com
Telnet: emergency.com

Return to the EmergencyNet News OP/ED page

Return to the Emergencynet News page