Reply #63: Lets see [View All]

[Mattforclark]

"Sure didn't stop him from showering civilian centers with DU rounds and cluster bombs."

1) Once you are in a war it is sound strategy to use all means at your disposal to win. This is a different thing from the decision of whether or not to get involved in the first place. Clark is not a pacafist, and I bet you are aware that Dean isn't either. I would not be inclined to support a pacafist for President, and I bet lots of other rational people wouldn't either.

2) Can you show me some solid scientific evidence on DU? I haven't seen any and once again I certainly do read the Guardian.

3) In some cases it is a good idea to use cluster bombs. In some cases it is not. Please provide evidence that Clark ordered cluster bombs to be used in a case for which they were clearly not suited. Thanks.

"His campaign in Kosovo was a failure, killing 1500 civilians and wounding 10,000 by NATO's own numbers. The Russians were the ones who brought an end to the war in Kosovo... all Clark did was bomb marketplaces, schools, hospitals, power plants, journalists etc. Oh and they did hit 13 Serb tanks... and it only took 20,000 bombs."

The objective of Kosovo was to stop the Serbs from killing/ethnic cleansing the Kosovars/ans. This occured after 79 days (IIRC).

You seem to be judging success or failure by another criteria, civilian casualties. That's fine, but can you show that 1500 dead civilians is less than would have been killed b the Serbs if NATO had not intervened?

More importantly, can you show that there was good reason to believe that the consequences of intervening - civilian and military casualties - would outweigh the benefit of civilians saved from ethnic cleansing and the creation of a precedent for intervention against ethnic cleansing? In other words, can you show that Clark's judgement in supporting Kosovo was bad?