topics dispatches sources home
Analysis of the US-led Assault on Yugoslavia

All dispatches on the US-led
attack on Yugoslavia are available, complete
with index, at
Please inform your friends, colleagues, and
others who you think might care.

June 10, 1999

This is worth reading through to the end

"BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- NATO Thursday announced a suspension
of its airstrikes against Yugoslavia after verifying the withdrawal
of Serb forces was underway."

It appears that NATO has given up on its original
goal of the equivalent of a complete military occupation
of the entire country of Yugoslavia. However...

"...the U.S. was compelled to sign after the failure
of the...bombings...the White House at once announced
quite lucidly that they would violate every significant
element of the Treaty they were signing (and presented)
a different version (of the agreement) which was adopted
in reporting and  commentary, so that when North Vietnam
finally responded to serious U.S. violations of the accords,
it became the incorrigible aggressor which had to be punished
once again, as it was." Vietnam 1973

Source: Z MAGAZINE: "Kosovo Peace Accord, Analysis by
Noam Chomsky"

Ramsey Clark calls for the disbanding of NATO, a
quixotic sounding quest if ever there were one. But
what is the alternative? Armed forces are, when
stripped of all the gloss, killing machines. Nothing
more, nothing less. Unfortunately, the *only* way
to keep these machines well oiled in to use them,
so they are used at regular intervals - against
someone. Why, 10 years after the collapse
of the Soviet Union, is NATO still in business

NATO: "An organization imposed on the Atlantic Alliance
which is no more and no less than the military and
political subordination of Western Europe to the United
States of America." - Charles de Gaulle

For whom the bell tolls

And for Americans who think this problem is "overseas",
'ask not for whom the bell tolls'...

In "Report on the Americas", May/June 1999, published by
North American Congress on Latin America, there is a News
Brief reminding us that Pres. Clinton wants to radically
change the relationship of the US military to domestic

"In a January 1999 interview that drew little public attention, President
Clinton stated that, as part of a major buildup in counterterror defenses,
he was considering a Pentagon proposal to establish a commander for the
defense of the continental United States...

The national security establishment sees a range of potential threats,
from terrorist assaults on infrastructure or national computer systems to
chemical or biological attacks, which, they maintain, law enforcement and
civilian agencies are ill-equipped to handle.  Military units are required,
in this view, to conduct rescue operations, maintain order and defend
against terrorist threats.

(Note: See for
the historical roots of this tactic.)

Role expansion in general and counterterror operations in particular,
which draw on counterinsurgency doctrine, tend to politicize militaries.
Historically--and certainly in Latin America--large and politicized
militaries with domestic security functions have endangered democratic

Distinctions between foreign and domestic enemies become hazy
and citizens become suspect. 'Homeland defense' blurs the line between
civilian and military authority and gives military commanders increasing
influence in political affairs and national decision-making.  Military
units may become a more intrusive presence in society.  Domestic military
intelligence and surveillance pose threats to freedoms of the press, of
assembly, of free speech and expression, and of protection from
unreasonable search and seizure.  But the US public seems unaware of
the recent steps expanding the military's domestic role."
- end of quote.

I repeat:

"Armed forces are, when stripped of all the gloss, killing machines.
Nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, the *only* way to keep
these machines well oiled in to use them, so they are used at regular
intervals - against someone."

The day the US installs a "a commander for the defense of the
continental United States," it will only be a matter of time before
US citizens on US soil become *direct* victims of what has been
going on, in our names and with our tax dollars, around the
world. If you haven't already, see William Bloom's "Killing Hope:
U. S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II " for
what is, potentially, in store for citizens of the United States:

And to read about what some believe was an example of a military
led operation against US citizens on US soil hidden behind
the facade of "inept" law enforcement see:

NATO Commander Wesley Clark, now so busy in Yugoslavia, was commander
of the Ft. Hood tanks used for the Waco assault. Before that he was
in charge of anticipating new training needs for the "soldier of
the 21st century." Apparently, directing US military to "accidentally"
kill innocent people is his highly rewarded contribution to military

Given the "success" of his operation against Yugoslavia, Clark is a
likely choice to become the first commander for the defense of the
continental United States if and when that position is created.

Like I said: Ask not for whom the bell tolls...

Directory of Dispatches || Sources || Index of Topics || Home

Copyright notice: any information on this page may be freely distributed as long as it is accompanied by the URL (web address) of this site which is