Article

2004-01-16 Home Front

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Lucky 2004-01-16 1:14:41 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "Ultimately, Clarkâs plan was executed as NATOâs first armed conflict. Serb police and military were replaced with an international security force in Kosovo, and costly ground conflict was avoided. It had been a limited war with limited means and objectives but successful coercive diplomacy nonetheless."

Guarding against cheap shots, perfectionism, and 20/20 hindsight -- the typical tools of unfair analysis -- wasn't there still a case at the time that the Kosovo war was a bit of a fiasco militarily? Specifically Clark's plan, which counted on Serb submission following limited bombing, and for which there was no Plan B?

I've never heard/read what finally happened, but I recall things were quite ugly for NATO (Serbia defiant, Apaches unusable, no ground operation in the works) when a negotiation session took place in Bonn, and Russia inexplicably and suddenly reversed its position -- forcing a Serb climb-down. I recall the thing was so odd, some of For. Min. Ivanov's staff resigned in disgust and surprise and returned to Moscow before the meetings finished.

Anyway, the sense at the time was of a very amateurish operation that prevailed only because the adversary was so puny and isolated. None of this implying poor performance by the military or the lack of good intentions by the leadership -- but hardly a feather in Clark's cap.

Is this correct or do I really have to read up more on the Balkans, which I find/found singularly uninteresting? (I know there was a book out last year on the topic that was fairly critical)

Posted by Questions 2004-1-16 2:36:03 AM|| 2004-1-16 2:36:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I remember hearing that the major reason for his being relieved of duty was an argument between him and the British commander. According to what I heard, he ordered the Brits to fire on some Russian troops, knowing full well that they were Russians and not Serbs. The Brit refused and told him "I'm not going to start World War 3 for you." Supposedly Clark had a fit and wanted the Brit to be relieved for insubordination. The decision from NATO, the UK and the US Army was that Clark, not the Brit, was out of line. He was relieved soon after.
Is that the real reason, or is Questions' version accurate? Either way, there's no way in hell I can vote for this idiot.

Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-1-16 9:05:25 AM|| 2004-1-16 9:05:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 It was at Pristina Airport when the Russians moved in. Heres a link

Posted by Yosemite Sam 2004-1-16 10:49:41 AM|| 2004-1-16 10:49:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 oh, oh, I have a question. If being releaved always means more or less being fired. What do they call it when the new commander arrives and you move on to another assignment (promotion or something?).

Aren't you still releaved? Hasn't hte releaf arrived? I know "releaved of duty" probably means canned but simply releaved could have lots of interpretations.

Of course he was probably fired, I'm just wondering about the semantics.

Posted by ruprecht 2004-1-16 11:15:29 AM|| 2004-1-16 11:15:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 change of command upon promotion is not "relieved". Weasley was relieved and retired early (i.e.: don't let the door hit you in the ass, Clark)...He's a dangerous man - hyperambition and lies are a poor resume

Posted by Frank G 2004-1-16 11:24:16 AM|| 2004-1-16 11:24:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 What do they call it when the new commander arrives and you move on to another assignment.
Reassigned is what it's called. When you passed the flag to the new commander, you relinquish command. I think the formal language in the ceremony has the new commander saying "Thank you, you are relieved", or something like that. But it's not the same thing.
In any branch of our military, if you hear someone has been relieved of his command, be it officer, NCO, or the whole staff, it's a bad thing. The most I personally have seen was the entire command section of our USAF support unit in the Netherlands. Never heard real reason why, one day they were just gone. Rumor was black marketing.

Posted by Steve 2004-1-16 11:42:45 AM|| 2004-1-16 11:42:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Yes, relieved is bad. We say "turned-over command" in the Corps for when one officer moves on to another post or whatever. When I was a company commander I turned over my command to another Captain, if I had been relieved of my command it would indicate I had been quasi-fired. Usually, there are no formal ceremonies when this occurs. However, when it comes to high ranking generals - anything is possible.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-1-16 2:10:46 PM|| 2004-1-16 2:10:46 PM|| Front Page Top

00:51 Anon1
00:46 Anon1
00:34 Anon1
23:51 Bomb-a-rama
23:47 andrew k
22:41 Wasserman
22:05 djohn66
22:05 4thInfVet
21:59 phil_b
21:51 Lone Ranger
21:28 Anonymous
21:20 Grunter
21:19 Dr. Weevil
21:15 Stephen
20:28 Alaska Paul
20:26 Alaska Paul
20:23 Anonymous
20:20 Alaska Paul
20:15 Charles
20:11 Well-Armed Lamb
20:10 Shipman
20:08 Shipman
20:07 DANEgerus
20:00 Shipman