US Foreign Interests

[Zephyrus]

I've been thinking about some recent wars and going-ons all around the world and the US interventions...Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo etc. All of them were not defined as "wars" specifically (so as to avoid paying damages afterwards) but rather as "crises".

Ok, in Iraq, the main reason for the intervention was because Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and because of the Iraqi persecution of the Kurds. Fair enough. In Bosnia too, the reason was to stop the war, all the attrocities going on, so one side, the Serbs, were bombed. Then again, the US and allies bombed Kosovo and the whole of Yugoslavia in 1999 because of the "ethnic cleansing", which is a favourite term that was used...

Ok, that's all fine, depending on what angle you look at it from. But there were so many other conflicts in the world where the West just failed to intervene. Chechenya is one of them. The situation is exactly the same as in Kosovo: rebel fighters want independence, the army responds very harshly and civilians get caught up in the middle of all this...so, why doesn't the US say anything to this? Not even economic sanctions, let alone considering to bomb Moscow (I wonder why)...

Then again, there are very similar conflicts in Angola, Rwanda, Somalia, Uganda, Ethiopia/Eritrea...etc. So why is there no reaction there? If the US and allies are truly interested in intervening based on "humanitarian" grounds, why not continue the trend in these countries?? Can it be concluded that the above mentioned interventions had completely different reasons??

For example, even if there are sanctions on Iraq, according to the Food for Oil programme, Iraq gets to export a certain amount of oil in return for food and medicine...but who gets the biggest part by far of this quota? You guessed it, the US.

In the beginning of 1999, the new single currency was introduced in Europe, the Euro. At it's debut, 1 Euro traded for around US$1.21, which of course was bad for US exports. Perhaps a solution to this was to introduce a conflict right on the doorstep of Europe...at the end of the crisis in June 1999, the Euro was trading for around US$0.92, and has since fallen even more to US$0.82...could that be an explanation?? What do you think? Have I been watching too much X-Files, or is there something else? ;)

[RoadRunner]

I thought we did send troops to Somalia. Of course, that doesn't explain all of the other places. My guess is that because of the depleted U.S. armed services we were not able to send people to as many places.

I'm also pretty sure that the places we did send troops were under U.N. supervision. Of course, the U.S. has a big say in the U.N., but the real question is probably why did the U.N. not send troops to those locations.

I would say that the conspiracy theory surounding the Euro is a bit far-fetched. It is more likely that the strong U.S. stock market, low U.S. interest rates, and strong U.S. economy drove up the value of the dollar more than it drove down the value of the Euro.

[Zephyrus]

Yes, I forgot about that momentarily. But of course, Somalia was a disaster for the United States, which was the reason the troops were pulled out.

You're right RoadRunner, it is under the supervision of the UN, but mostly on paper only. Like you said, since the US does have a huge say in the UN, perhaps it could be that the UN did not send troops because it didn't suit the interests of the US?

Do you think that the Kosovo conflict, for example, was fought under the jurisdiction of the UN? The troops that are in there now are the same troops that were ready to invade if it ever came to that. I know people from Serbia, and there isn't a single "blue beret" in Kosovo (of course this will probably change in the future with the new Democratic government in Serbia as well as the new Bush administration).

And, according to the UN charter, I don't think it is allowed for a country to violate another country's sovreignty. It seems as if the UN was bypassed alltogether somehow...

As for the Euro, well I can't think of any other reason for having American troops on European soil. Perhaps to show Europe that it still depends on the US? I don't know, these might just be wild ideas...

[RoadRunner]

We had U.S. troops on European soil long before any of these crises began. If there were no conflicts going on in Europe, the only troops we would have there would be on the few bases we have left after the war.

The funny thing about it is that when World War II was going on without U.S. involvement, we were blasted for not helping. Now that we do have troops in Europe, we are blasted either for helping too much or for not helping enough. It seems like we are going to get bashed either way.

All of that said, I still believe that the Euro's problem is the strength of the Dollar, not U.S. troops in Europe.

[RoadRunner]

Let's face it, stability in the Mid-East is important to the U.S. becuase of oil and Israel. Stability in Europe is important to the U.S. because it is Europe. Europe is important to us because we are allies. Europe is important to us because it is not run by communist thugs and dictators. Europe is a very important trade partner. Europe is Europe. Of course we are more interested in Europe's stability.

Our involvement is not to make the Euro weak. It is to help maintain stability in countries that are important to us. If anything, it is to help keep the Euro strong.

[Zephyrus]

Very well put, I actually agree :)

What was the exact reason that the European Union was created? The stronger economy? Larger/stronger military?

I know that the Middle East is important to the US (after all, if it wasn't important it would probably have gotten the heck bombed out of it ages ago). Of course, the US does have a large Jewish lobby (not meant to be an insult of any kind :)), so there is a mutual interest to find peace there.

On the other hand, the humanitarian reason was why the US got involved in the Persian Gulf, because of the Iraqi prosecution of Kurds and the invasion of Kuwait. I was just commenting that their main interests are sometimes different from those that are used to "justify" everything to the mainstream media.

By the way, I don't think there's all that much oil in Kosovo though...

[RoadRunner]

Actually, Christians have a vested interest in the Isreal also. We believe that God promised Israel (Jacob) that He would "bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you."

Of course, if Israel goes off the deep end, we aren't going to support that. But in general, Christians who know their Bibles and know the covenants God made with Isreal will want to bless Israel, not curse it. That is why someone like Hitler or any other anti-semite is such an abomination to Bible-believing Christians.

[RoadRunner]

BTW, thanks for the "very well put" compliment.

[CommunistPanda]

I've had this debate so many times before, but I think the US should intervene MUCH more often on humanitarian grounds, rather than just protecting it's own interests.

I also think that it's amusing that the US pulls it's troops out of warzones, refuses to send in peacekeeping troops, and then starts whining when the EU creates it's own peacekeeping force independent of the US. Didn't anyone else see that coming?

[Zephyrus]

I know, it's a very current issue :)

Panda, that's what I was talking about...the US intervenes a lot on what it claims to be "humanitarian" grounds, but I guess some places are more humanitarian than others! Why don't they intervene in Chechenya? Or any of those other places that I mentioned? If the motives were purely humanitarian, they would have no more reason to intervene in, say, Kosovo than in Chechenya!

That was the whole theme of the post...that perhaps there are alterior motives involved.

[Anat]

From my humble experience and learnings - decisions making on those levels is so complicated that there's really little room for any conspiracy theories.

There are dozens (sometimes hundreds or even thousands) or advisors that pull the leaders this way and that. Eventually, there can be so many factors involved and so many pressure groups, you just can't put it all to a single motive of any kind.

The way I see it, the US, much like any other country, wants (continued) well being for its people. As simple as that. The US main interest is to have a healthy, strong, rich society. Now the big question is how do you do that?

I think the US basic concept of global free commerce has really proved itself in the past century. Now it's in the US interest to keep global stability, to keep trade routes open, to keep oil prices from going up etc. etc.

When faced with a threat to this basic interest, the US leaders begin to analyse each situation, weigh the risks and costs and see which methods of crisis management would work best. Into this analysis come many many factors - public opinion, pressure groups (lobbys), other conflicts, regional problems, personalities of those involved and more. In the end, it's sometimes difficult for an outside spectator to follow the whole process, which is not totally rational either - remember we're dealing with people after all. That's how political scientists make their careers - analysing this process in retrospect :)

I could give you a long list of why the US is helping Israel -

Israel is the only democracy in the middle east.

The Jewish lobby.

Us troops train here (we're the only country in the whole world that lets your troops train with live fire on its soil!)

The Christian system of belief (shared by American leaders and public)

In case of war, we're the only country in the Middle East that is a true ally and we'll lend the US forces any help they may need.

Military cooperation (with all due respect, there are still things the US military learns from the IDF)

I could probably think of more.

[Zephyrus]

Good explanation, I can understand the ties between the US and Israel go back a long way...

But here's the thing: even though I realise that the US is protecting its way of life, how right is it for it to destroy another country to be able to continue to live this way?? For example, to completely destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, cripple the country further by economic sanctions in order to have continued access to Iraqi oil??

"The US main interest is to have a healthy, strong, rich society."

Is a solution to this to make others sick, weak and poor?

As far as the Christian system of belief goes, then it is simply a holy war/crusade? And after all, in Kosovo, the Serbs are Christian (Orthodox) whereas the Albanians are Muslim, so the religious argument doesn't hold steady in that particular region. By the way, as far as I know Judaism is the religion of Israel, which is similar to (but not completely the same as) Christianity.

[Anat]

Originally posted by Zephyrus

As far as the Christian system of belief goes, then it is simply a holy war/crusade? And after all, in Kosovo, the Serbs are Christian (Orthodox) whereas the Albanians are Muslim, so the religious argument doesn't hold steady in that particular region. By the way, as far as I know Judaism is the religion of Israel, which is similar to (but not completely the same as) Christianity.

I was referring to RoadRunner's post about:
Actually, Christians have a vested interest in the Isreal also. We believe that God promised Israel (Jacob) that He would "bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you."


I meant to say that this belief, shared by many Christians in the US, is one of the influences on the decision making.

Israel is a Jewish country (with freedom of religion to all non-Jews who live here). But there is a Christian affinity with the people of Israel (as RR explained so much beter :))

No, I don't think that the US should hurt others to maintain its interests. But I wasn't making a moralistic judgement on the decisions themselves, rather trying to describe the desicion making process as I see it. My point was that there isn't "one truth" or "one plot". It's a lot more complicated than that. I'm pretty much sure there wasn't even one person in the American political system who actually wanted to hurt an Iraqi person. It's just that the whole complex interests and pressure groups and what not created that decision to attack.

I hope I'm making myself clear... I'm not sure I am :(

[jamesglewisf]

Anat, I think your post was very lucid and thoughtful. I can't imagine what it is like for the the President to try to decide what to do and where.

[jamesglewisf]

I believe that the humanitarian interest in Iraq was to stop their invasion of Kuwaiti. In other words, the humanitarian interest was Kuwaiti, not Iraq. That was also not the only interest we had. Stability in the Mid-East and the oil supplies were important. One thing you might not know is that you bomb roads to disable the military's ability to move troops and equipment.

Here is the transcript of a Pentagon News Briefing that gives some insight. I got it from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/03/pentagon/index.html). I figure it is OK to paste the whole thing since it is not really an article, but the transcript of a news briefing.

[jamesglewisf]

September 3, 1996
Web posted at: 1:15 p.m. EDT (1715 GMT)

William Perry, U.S. Secretary of Defense
Ken Bacon, Defense Department spokesman
General Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

BACON: Secretary Perry and General Ralston, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will each make opening statements and then take your questions. I request that you hold all your questions until they finish their statements. Secretary Perry.

PERRY: More than five years ago, after Iraq was defeated in Desert Storm, the Kurds in northern Iraq and the Shiites in southern Iraq tried to seize that opportunity to gain their freedom from Saddam's oppression. Saddam Hussein sent his battered, but still large army to brutally suppress their revolt, killing tens of thousands of Kurds and Shiites and creating a million Kurd refugees who tried to flee into Turkey.

The U.N. responded to this humanitarian disaster by demanding that Saddam Hussein end the brutality to his own people and authorized the United States to organize a coalition to conduct operation Provide Comfort, which enforced a no-fly zone north of 36 degrees.

And later, authorized operation Southern Watch, which enforced the no-fly zone south of 32 degrees. On the map here you see the northern no-fly zone and the southern no-fly zone. These actions have kept Saddam Hussein from committing further atrocities and have sustained an uneasy peace these past five years.

But two major factions of the Kurds, the KDP and the PUK, have fought among themselves with the U.S. attempting to broker a peace agreement. Recently one of these factions, the PUK, got some limited military support from the Iranians. The other faction, the KDP, then made a strategic blunder by inviting the Iraqis to enter Kurdish territory to attack PUK forces.

Our intelligence disclosed an Iraqi military buildup under way more than a week ago.

And on the 28th of August we warned Iraq not to use military force. The Iraqis, seeing an opportunity to regain control of northern Iraq at the expense of both the PUK and the KDP, ignored the warning. They employed a force of about 40,000 men, including many tanks and hundreds of artillery pieces which quickly defeated the few thousand PUK defenders in Irbil.

Now they are pulling their mechanized forces out of Irbil, leaving infantry behind and moving towards two other cities, one of which they have been shelling for the last two days.

Our national interests are not tied to which party prevails in this conflict in northern Iraq. But we do have vital national security interests in maintaining security and stability in the region.

PERRY: These vital interests include maintenance and stability, protection of friendly nations including Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, and protection of the flow of oil.

We believe that the aggressive military actions of Saddam Hussein constitutes a threat to that security and stability. The Iraqis emboldened by the success against the relatively weak PUK forces might, if they saw no reaction from the international community, move to suppress both the PUK and the KDP.

Or, they might move against their neighbors to the south as they did in August, 1990 and again in October of 1994. Without a military response, Saddam Hussein's position in the country and the region would be strengthened and vital interests to the United States could be threatened.

Iraq's use of force in the past has posed a major threat to U.S. interests. The issue is not simply the Iraqi attack on Irbil, it is the clear and present danger that Saddam Hussein poses to his neighbors, to the security and stability of the region and to the flow of oil in the world.

Even after their defeat in Desert Storm, the Iraqis still have the largest and most powerful military force in the region. This military force has been held in check these past five years by the military forces of the coalition buttressing the forces of the regional powers of the Gulf States.

Now Saddam Hussein has demonstrated once more his willingness to use military power recklessly. And we must demonstrate once more our willingness and capability to check that power and deter Saddam Hussein from being the regional bully.

Therefore, last week the president, at the same time he instructed Secretary Christopher to send a warning to Saddam Hussein, instructed me to put the appropriate military forces on alert and to prepare our contingency plan for military action which we would take if Iraq did not heed the warning. They did not. So the president instructed me last night to execute that plan.

The plan does not involve the United States in the conflict under way in Iraq. But it does make Saddam Hussein pay a price for his aggression.

And it does position coalition forces to more effectively deter any further military adventures that he might be considering.

We need to act now to ensure that Saddam, does not conclude that he can upset regional security with impunity. Our response protects the United State's interests by strengthening our ability to contain future Iraqi attacks. We have chosen the time, the place and the modality of our response to suit our strategic interests and our comparative advantage, not his.

We have extended the no-fly zone in the southern region from 32 degrees to 33 degrees. This will be effective at noon tomorrow. This will substantially weaken Saddam Husse

Last night we conducted strikes against fixed SAM sites and air defense control facilities south of the 33rd latitude.

These were targets south of this 33 degree zone. This move - - this action will greatly facilitate our ability to enforce the no-fly zone particularly this now extended no-fly zone. I will now turn the podium over to General Joe Ralston the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who will describe the strikes we conducted and the military rationale for those strikes.

[jamesglewisf]

RALSTON: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. First of all I would like to say how proud I am to represent the men and women in uniform who over the last few days and this weekend have worked to plan and to execute this operation. The operation was conducted by the U.S. Central Command under the leadership of General Binny Peay. General Peay and his component commanders are in the AOR and I want to extend my appreciation to them for the many long hours that they have put in both the planning and the execution.

I would like to start off with, as Secretary Perry says, with the 33rd latitude no-fly zone. As you notice, there is a major military training area within that zone as well as two major air bases with airplanes. By denying this air space to the Iraqi regime, we have given ourselves more warning should he decide to move to the south against our friends and allies.

We have also made a significant impact on his ability to train. That training area -- the denial of that training area effectively denies him the ability to train his ground forces with their air force.

Now in order to conduct this no-fly zone, we will have to have coalition aircraft will have to fly further north into Iraq over Iraqi territory than they have in the past.

The reason for the strike was to take out those air defenses that would threaten the coalition aircraft. These are notional sites that you see here. They are not in the exact location, as you see.

I'd like to go to the next slide, please.

This is a picture of one of those sites, but as you can see, it has a central radar band. It has command and control facilities. It has missile launchers with missiles on them.

That is not atypical of the type of targets selected.

Next slide, please.

Our objective was to reduce the defenses that our aircraft would encounter as they enforce the no-fly zone to the 33rd parallel. Our objective, once again, is to enforce the no- fly zone. The taking out of the targets is a means of facilitating that.

Next slide, please.

The strikes were conducted using cruise missiles, both the Tomahawk cruise missile from the USS Carl Vinson battle group, which is located in the Gulf, as well as conventional air launch cruise missiles, or CALCMs, from B-52Hs.

Next slide.

For those of you who are interested, here is a slide on the two types of missiles that were used. This is the Tomahawk. As you see, it is a sea-launch missile with about a 1,000 pound warhead.

The CALCM is the conventional version of the nuclear air- launch cruise missile, and it is launched from the B-52.

That completes what I've got in the way of a briefing. I believe the secretary and I would entertain your questions at this time.

[jamesglewisf]

QUESTION: Can you give us any idea of how effective these strikes were in terms of hitting their targets?

RALSTON: We're still assessing the -- doing the battle damage assessment. We have not made a determination at this time.

QUESTION: Dr. Perry, could you tell us, is the United States -- if Saddam does not remove his forces from northern Iraq and stop attacking the Kurds -- is the United States prepared to quickly launch more raids, and would those raids be easier to launch now that the missile defenses are -- have been degraded in southern Iraq?

PERRY: Charlie, you know we do not discuss future military operations. We certainly reserve the right to conduct further actions -- further military actions. Whether or not we conduct them and how we conduct them and against what targets is a matter still to be determined. One factor which will influence that determination -- but not the only factor -- will be the actions of the Iraqis over the days and weeks ahead.

QUESTION: Secretary Perry, will expanding the no-fly zone require additional U.S. aircraft to patrol that area? And also, are other American forces now being moved into the vicinity for the two forces of air forces?

PERRY: We do not require additional forces to do that. Let me ask General Ralston to comment further.

RALSTON: With regard to the enforcement of the 33rd no-fly zone, if we require additional forces they will be minimal. We're assessing that now to make sure that we've got adequate forces to protect our personnel.

QUESTION: What about other forces being moved in, such as the Enterprise, carrier Enterprise? Are there forces being moved into the region?

PERRY: The Enterprise is on a tether and we can move it into the region in a matter of days if we decide we need it in the region. We've not made that judgment at this point.

QUESTION: Have Saudi Arabia and Kuwait agreed that U.S. aircraft based in their countries can be used to monitor or police this expanded no-fly zone in southern Iraq?

PERRY: We have had extensive consultations with many allies in the region, particularly with Saudi Arabia.

I have talked several times on the phone with the Saudi defense minister. The president has talked with King Fahd and General Shali of course visited the kingdom just a few days ago. So we've had extensive consultations. The most important conclusions from those consultations was their agreement that they would continue to support the operation Southern Watch with this extended no-fly zone.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, why not -- since the problem was in the north, why not extend the northern no-fly zone further south? Why not make that a no-drive zone, as there is in the south? And will this extended zone in the south also refer to the movement of Iraqi troops? That is, will it also be a no-drive zone south of the 33rd parallel?

PERRY: We have acted on what we thought were out most important national interests.

And we have seen in the past and we continue to see the greatest threat of Saddam Hussein to the region being in the south. And therefore, that's where we concentrated our attention. We are responding to where we see our strategic interests threatened and that was why we focused on the south.

QUESTION: Will it be a no-drive zone from the 33rd south? Or can Saddam Hussein -- he's not supposed to move -- have any major troop movements below the 32nd. Does that now apply to below the 33rd? Ground troops, I'm talking about.

PERRY: That decision is yet to be made as to whether to extend the no-drive zone from the 32nd to the 33rd. The decision that has been taken was to extend the no-fly zone to the 33rd. Yes?

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you have in effect spanked Saddam Hussein and made it easier for U.S. and coalition aircraft to fly safely now up to the 33rd parallel, but you haven't done anything to halt the actual fighting and aggression against the Kurds in the north. If this aggression continues, as you have said it seems to be, what moves are possible to actually stop that, short of putting ground troops in?

PERRY: We have many other options available to us. I cannot -- would not describe them at this time. And I would not want to forecast whether we would have to implement them.

We would hope this move would be sufficient that it would have the desired effect. But we just have to watch very carefully what happens in the days and the weeks ahead.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, what connection is there between the Iraqi actions in the north and your statement that Saddam could pose a new threat to the south? Is there any evidence that Iraq has been posing a new threat in the south?

PERRY: There have been major threats to the south in recent history, in October of '94 and again in August of '95 -- in both of those cases, sufficient to require us to deploy major forces to the area.

We still see that as the principal threat. And our concern is that if Saddam Hussein is emboldened by what he would see as a success in the north, he might strike out in areas which are of greater strategic importance to him, as well as to us, in the south.

So we want to keep our focus on where our vital national security interests are.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, what about Iran...

RALSTON: Could I follow that up quickly?

QUESTION: There is no new threat in the south?

PERRY: Pardon me?

QUESTION: There is no new threat in the south? This was not in response...

PERRY: There is a continuing threat in the south. The threat in the south is there every day. We have Iraqi forces are -- continue to be positioned, ground forces, so that they could pose a threat to the south.

What is crucial to keep that theoretical threat from becoming a real threat is curtailing an ability to provide them with support, and also providing very strong and very rapid coalition air to strike any such move to the south.

And so this is very, very relevant to that.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, what message is Iran supposed to get out of this, if any?

PERRY: We have separately warned Iran not to meddle in this conflict in northern Iraq.

QUESTION: General Ralston, could you give us an assessment of what effect these -- the intention of these air strikes would have on the Iraqis' integrated air defense system?

That is, clearly it's degraded their ability between the 32nd and the 33rd parallel, but how does this affect its air defenses across the whole country? Is this part of a -- is this an integral link, or is there any assessment of that?

RALSTON: Certainly the targets that were chosen were not only surface-to-air missile sites but the integrated operations centers of his air defense system. And these are inter-netted, tied in to the overall air defense network. When you take out pieces of it, it makes the overall network less effective.

QUESTION: General Ralston...

RALSTON: Excuse me, I have question here. Thank you.

QUESTION: General Ralston, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit more about the raid itself. Several of us were curious why B-52s had to be brought over from the United States and why the Navy Tomahawks couldn't do the job themselves?

RALSTON: We -- there is what I will call a division of labor. There is a lot of planning that has to be done when you have targets such as this. And so, it was appropriate that we have the planners for TLAN are working very hard on a set of targets. The planners for CALCM were working very hard on their set of targets. I believe the two working together were able to do the job quicker and more effectively than what we could have done with either singly.

QUESTION: Why daytime, why was this done in the daytime?

RALSTON: We don't want to get into the reasons that we choose particular times of day.

QUESTION: General Ralston, Saddam Hussein, I believe claimed in a speech this morning, that his forces shot down most of our missiles. How would you react to that?

RALSTON: We certainly have no evidence of that.

QUESTION: General Ralston, do you have any evidence that there has been any misfiring of the missiles?

RALSTON: We have no evidence that there was any misfiring of the missiles.

QUESTION: General Ralston, it's about 5 p.m. or later Iraqi time now. You don't have any indication at all whether this raid was successful or whether these missiles hit their targets and destroyed the radar?

RALSTON: What I said was we do not have a complete assessment of the battle damage done as yet.

We certainly have indications that by all means the raid was effective.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, why did the B-52s have to go the long way around? Last time they shot at CALCUM (ph) they flew straight from Barksdale (ph) across the Mediterranean and shot from a box over Saudi Arabia.

PERRY: The flight time from CONUS to the target area is approximately the same as from Guam to the target area. We routinely position B-52s in Guam and other places to conduct global power missions. This was the route that was chosen this time.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary.

RALSTON: I might say that we -- this whole mission could have been done by TLAMs, the whole mission could have been by B-52s. The whole mission could have been done by B-52s. The whole mission could have been done by Navy based air. We have many options for how we conduct a mission like this. We considered many of those options.

One of the great advantages of the cruise missiles is the minimal risk to the U.S. forces involved. And the choice of a combination of TLAMs and B-52s is a choice of convenience, not a necessity.

QUESTION: With the intent on moving this no-fly zone a little bit farther north and flying more defense against the south, how does that stop Saddam from continuing in the north? What tactical effect does it have on that? And number two, what does he actually have to do now to comply with whatever goal you've set down in this latest strike?

PERRY: We expect compliance with the no-fly zone instructions. That says that we expect no flight below the 33rd parallel. And if there is flight, we will take appropriate actions.

QUESTION: I understand that but how does

RALSTON: Let me take the first part of that if I may. By impacting his training of his forces of his air forces and impacting the training -- the integrated training -- of his air forces and his ground forces, we believe that is a significant constraint on the training and therefore, the combat readiness of his forces.

QUESTION: In the north as well?

RALSTON: All over.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, how viable is it still to try to maintain a no-fly zone in the north given that your math shows that the KDP controls much of that territory and they have now allied themselves with Iraq.

PERRY: (OFF-MIKE) still viable to maintain a no-fly zone in the north. We will watch very carefully what happens, politically, with the KDP and the Iraqis and the PUK in the weeks ahead that determine the political desirability of doing that.

QUESTION: Can you answer the part of the question about what he would have to do in the north (OFF-MIKE) -- how fast and how extensive would his actions have to be in the north now to comply with what conditions we're levying there?

PERRY: We're not going to set -- we're not going to make any public declarations -- of what actions Saddam Hussein has to take at this time. We have sent a very strong message to him. We expect that there will be a change in his behavior as a result of this. We'll be watching very carefully to see what that is. But, I'm not going to draw any specific criteria for what...

QUESTION: What does he need to do though, sir? Does he need to pull back all his troops, does he -- what does he need to do though?

PERRY: I'm not going to describe any specific set of criteria for him. We have given him a strong message. We expect to see changes in behavior. We will be watching very carefully. We reserve the right to take future military actions.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary since you have this new area of a no-fly zone in the south between the 32nd and 33rd parallel is this -- has this -- in the past six months or year been a site of heavy Iraqi air activity by helicopters or planes?

PERRY: The short answer is yes. Do you want to elaborate on that General Ralston?

RALSTON: Just to clarify it. Below the 32nd parallel, the no-fly zone has been very effective. But between the 32nd and 33rd where he has major fighter bases there, there has been significant training activity in that zone between the 32nd and 33rd parallel.

QUESTION: Has he used air in the north zone in this move against the Kurds. Has he used air power at all?

(Statement and question garbled in transmission).

PERRY: Well first of all let me say that we acted on our own national interests which is the president's responsibility. We believed we had to act quickly. We did, however, have extensive consultation with allies. The president, the secretary of state, the national security adviser, General Shalikashvili and myself, all have been consulting with our allies.

We expect most of our allies to be supportive. And most importantly, I would point out, we did not need their participation in this strike.

We have the national resources to conduct this strike. We do need -- we do need -- their continued cooperation. In the case of some countries, their participation to continue to maintain the no-fly zone, the operation Southern Watch and the operation Provide Comfort. And we have been assured by our allies we will continue to have that cooperation and support. That is the key.

QUESTION: Has France agreed? Does that include France?

RALSTON: Yes.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) And they will continue to take part...?

RALSTON: We expect France to continue to participate in operation Southern Watch.

PERRY: We have time for one more question.

QUESTION: Your reaction to the Iraqi statement that this new no-fly zone is "null and void?"

PERRY: We have never, from the beginning, sought their permission for establishing the no-fly zone. They never concurred or supported the no-fly zone to the 32 degrees. We would not expect them to support the extension of it to 33. This is not an issue in which they have a vote.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary what changes in Saddam's behavior (OFF- MIKE)?

PERRY: What we are looking for, primarily, is deterrence. Deterrence of future military adventures. This on the one hand sends a strong message. But I think even more importantly it positions the coalition forces so if that message is not accepted, we are in a stronger position to deal with any further military actions he might take.

Thank you.

[jamesglewisf]

Sorry about the long posts. I thought they might be a good refresher course. They were for me, anyhow.

[Zephyrus]

Our national interests are not tied to which party prevails in this conflict in northern Iraq. But we do have vital national security interests in maintaining security and stability in the region.

PERRY: These vital interests include maintenance and stability, protection of friendly nations including Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, and protection of the flow of oil.

We believe that the aggressive military actions of Saddam Hussein constitutes a threat to that security and stability.

This is of course what I meant by other interests. It's plain obvious that there is no humanitarian interest whatsoever, but what it comes down to is oil, oil, and more oil.

...We certainly reserve the right to conduct further actions -- further military actions.

Can I ask a question, where does this right come from? Is this a "God given" right?? What part of the UN charter, international law or whatever gives another country any of these rights?


And what about the sanctions that have done nothing but strengthen the Iraqi regime (which they were meant to weaken) and harm countless Iraqi people? So far, more than 500,000 children have died as a result of these sanctions...I don't really see them as dictators or agressors or rapists or anything but children...

This was the point I was trying to make with the thread. The US has it's interests which differ from those stated on the news to persuade public opinion. Whether these decisions come from one person (the President) or a whole bunch of pressure groups is highly irrelevant, the whole country is judged by it's actions and not its intentions. Basically, the US will go to whatever means necessary to protect these rights, regardless of the cost on the other side...if you think about it, that's what it comes down to.

[Anat]

Originally posted by Zephyrus
Our national interests are not tied to which party prevails in this conflict in northern Iraq. But we do have vital national security interests in maintaining security and stability in the region.

PERRY: These vital interests include maintenance and stability, protection of friendly nations including Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, and protection of the flow of oil.

We believe that the aggressive military actions of Saddam Hussein constitutes a threat to that security and stability.

This is of course what I meant by other interests. It's plain obvious that there is no humanitarian interest whatsoever, but what it comes down to is oil, oil, and more oil.


Does it only say oil? :) I'm not saying oil wasn't the main reason, only in that particular paragraph he's talking about some other things. Personally, I consider the safety of the region quite highly :)

[CommunistPanda]

Hmm. They both seemed rather evasive when questioned as to whether there was actually any intention of helping the Kurds.

[Zephyrus]

Our national interests are not tied to which party prevails in this conflict in northern Iraq.

Well, this lines sums it up pretty well! What he was saying was that the US couldn't really care which side prevails, as long as their interests are preserved.

I can of course respect that, just wish they would actually state it that way, without beating about the bush so much!

Anat, you're right, regional security is quite an issue as well...after all, if they left the Middle East as it is, I'm almost 100% confident that all-out war would break out (and quite possibly WWIII).

[RoadRunner]

Originally posted by Zephyrus
Do you think that the Kosovo conflict, for example, was fought under the jurisdiction of the UN? The troops that are in there now are the same troops that were ready to invade if it ever came to that. I know people from Serbia, and there isn't a single "blue beret" in Kosovo (of course this will probably change in the future with the new Democratic government in Serbia as well as the new Bush administration).

And, according to the UN charter, I don't think it is allowed for a country to violate another country's sovreignty. It seems as if the UN was bypassed alltogether somehow...This is what I just read at www.washingtontimes.com. President-elect George W. Bush pledged yesterday that he would consider any reduction in U.S. peacekeeping troops in the Balkans only after careful review and consultation with allies in Europe.

In an interview with the Reuters news agency, Mr. Bush went out of his way to calm fears raised in Europe when his top foreign-policy aide, Condoleezza Rice, said in October that the then-Republican candidate sought a "new division of labor" for the peacekeeping missions in Kosovo and Bosnia.

...

The United States supplied most of the military firepower in the Bosnia conflict of 1995-96 and the 1999 air war with Yugoslavia over Kosovo. But troops from European nations now make up about 87 percent of the peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Kosovo.I was curious about the Washington Times' description of "fears raised in Europe," so I went to BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1076000/1076128.stm) and read an article written on December 18, 2000 about Condoleezza Rice: She has also already managed to alarm the US's Nato allies, by adovating withdrawing US troops from Bosnia and Kosovo, and criticising the Clinton administration for supporting too many foreign interventions.

During the campaign, she said that Mr Bush would preside over a gradual recall of US troops from the Balkans, leaving Europe to manage the Nato peacekeeping mission in the region.

US troops make up about a fifth of the 65,00-strong Nato peacekeeping force in the former Yugoslavia.

[RoadRunner]

Originally posted by RoadRunner
I'm also pretty sure that the places we did send troops were under U.N. supervision. Of course, the U.S. has a big say in the U.N., but the real question is probably why did the U.N. not send troops to those locations.I was wrong. According to those two articles at the Washington Times and BBC News, Kosovo was a NATO operation, not the U.N.

[keithster]

Indeed it was NATO. And NATO broke it's charter to do the job.

It appeared to me that the deal NATO got after bombing was the about same one that Milosevic offered in the first place but which was rejected by NATO (or Albright) because they wanted the whole Kosovo enchilada. If that's the case, the bombing was completely unnecessary.

[Zephyrus]

You're right to a certain degree Keithster, the deal NATO offered to Milosevic at Rambuillet before the bombing involved complete jurisdiction of Kosovo for NATO, but also unrestricted access to NATO forces all over Serbia and immunity from prosecution under Yugoslav law...basically one step short of invasion. In an series made by the BBC (I'll reference it when I find it), Robin Cook said that the alliance knew these terms were unacceptable to the Serbs and that all they needed was the Kosovar Albanians to agree to be able to start bombing...

However, I'm sure if the peace deal wasn't signed, NATO wouldn't have been able to go on with the campaign for much longer (nor would Yugoslavia, since a lot of the infrastructure was getting destroyed). It was a case of who could hold out longer...

[Zephyrus]

What I meant by who could hold out longer was that it was obvious for NATO that air power alone wasn't doing all that much damage to the military as was previously thought. The only way forward would have been for an invasion force, something which the British were pushing and the Americans opposed since day one. That was a big wedge in the alliance, plus the Germans, Greeks and Italians were pushing for a cessation of the bombing.

[jamesglewisf]

Zephyrus,

I enjoy reading your posts. You seem very intelligent, well-informed, and balanced.

[Zephyrus]

Thanks for the complement Jim, just hope I don't sound like Grandpa Simpson when he's telling his stories...! :)

[keithster]

Zephyrus,

Thanks for the info.

I also heard that the supposed genicide was not quite what it was played, that both sides were taking casualties. It sounded like NATO was playing fast and loose with the numbers in order to justify bombing.

Can you enlighten us on that?

[Zephyrus]

Quite true, of course it was a war of the medias as much as anyting else. The US intervention depended a lot on public opinion, so it had to sway it in a certain direction. True, there were casualties and massacres on both sides, but what the news tended to focus on was the Serbian attrocities only.

What happened a lot of the time was that there would be, say, a Serbian convoy of police patrolling a certain region. The Albanian rebels would ambush them and inflict heavy casualties, then retreat into a village or town. In retaliation, the police had to go into these villages or towns and seek out any rebels which were using ordinary folk as cover (not all Albanians wanted independance from Serbia). As a result, the news would focus on the Albanian menfolk who were killed (no doubt in fighting), all the women crying etc. and only btiefly mention that a police convoy was ambushed. This of course was more than enough for public opinion to turn in favour of an attack.

Also, NATO couldn't show casualties that it sustained, because I'm sure the sight of bodies being returned home would have drastic effects on public relations. Same with shot down aircraft, cruise missiles and spy planes etc. To this day, I think the Pentagon claims the F117a had engine troubles when it crashed! If you remember the daily press briefings by the alliance when they recited lots of numbers, how they destroyed, say, 34% of Serbian tanks, 52% of their air defense etc. All this was needed to portray an image that the campaign was an overwhelming success for the alliance, so that they could justify the bombing and keep on going.

What gets me however is that according to these briefings, almost all of the Serb tanks were destroyed, but when you saw those images of hundreds of tanks pulling out of Kosovo, it would seem to imply something else :)

What about the Chinese embassy, what do you think? Was it an accident like it was claimed or intentional to see China's reaction??

[RoadRunner]

Originally posted by keithster
Zephyrus,

Thanks for the info.

I also heard that the supposed genicide was not quite what it was played, that both sides were taking casualties. It sounded like NATO was playing fast and loose with the numbers in order to justify bombing.

Can you enlighten us on that? It seems like it would be better to back this up with a report from a reputable news agency or government agency rather than "I also heard." This is the stuff that Internet urban legends are made of.

[Zephyrus]

Well, like I mentioned it was a war of the medias, so it might be hard to find an *accredited* source to back such a claim...

I'll have a run through the briefings on the NATO site, I'll get back to you RoadRunner :)

[Zephyrus]

OK, this is a particular news briefing I remember seeing on CNN the day after the Embassy was hit:
http://www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990508b.htm - the part to read specifically is the Q&A after General Jertz's Operations Briefing, about half way down the page.

I have personally been to Belgrade with my friend (on a visit at the end of 1999), so I've seen (and have pictures of) the Chinese embassy. His grandparents live about half a kilometer from the embassy itself, they say they heard about four loud booms and even at that distance it was enough to shatter a lot of windows!

If you read the press briefing, the claim is that the Chinese embassy was targeted thinking that it was the "Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement", and it was hit several times with massive 2000lb laser guided bombs. There is of course no such building anywhere near the embassy. The vast majority of space around it is just empty fields with shrubs and bushes. There is an Energo Project building about 150m from the embassy, which is the office headquarters of that company. Appart from that, the nearest thing is an appartment/shopping complex which there is no way to confuse with anything else. This particular part of Belgrade (New Belgrade) is 99% appartment buildings/civillian infrastructure, the operational buildings are on the other side of the river Danube!

By the way, the embassy is about 5 years old now, and it's on every possible tourist map (it was really a nice building before they hit it). I don't see how NATO, with satellite surveillance, spy planes, and other such information sources could even get close to making such a mistake :D!

By the way, if anyone is interested, all the press briefings from the campaign can be found on this page:
http://www.nato.int/kosovo/all-frce.htm

Road Runner, I hope I've answered your question :)