From Phoenix, Arizona
Ned Crabb, Letters EditorTHE WALL STREET JOURNAL New York, NY
Subject: A letter to the editor re. "Rambouillet Requiem..." WSJ OpEd Mar. 4, 1998
Kudos to Mr. Alan Kuperman for his dispassioned analysis of why Madam Halfbright's recent Kosovo conference only produced a Rambouillet egg on the face of our Secretary of Hate (see "Rambouillet Requiem: Why the Talks Failed," WSJ, 3/04/99). Just a couple of amplifications are due, however. No passionate issues, such as Kosovo, can be explained, much less resolved, by dispassionate analyses, no matter how rational they may seem.
So falling for such nonsense was the Clinton administration's first and main failure at Rambouillet.
The second was a flaw in their assumptions - that they can keep on deceiving the American public with impunity. After saying that Belgrade would be bombed if it refused to sign on to the Washington proposal, Mr. Kuperman adds, "if the (Kosovo) Albanians refused (to sign at Rambouillet), their supply lines would be cut."
Wait a minute! If the Clinton administration has the means to cut the supply lines to the Kosovo Albanian secessionists, but it hasn't, doesn't that mean that Washington has been the Kosovo Albanian terrorists' accomplice? Shades of a similar Iran-Bosnia secret arms deal to which the Clinton administration acquiesced in 1994? (check out other stories at our Web site about that).
As for Mr. Kuperman's bottom line conclusion - that the Clinton administration's Rambouillet proposal would mean, "a prolonged and overwhelming American presence," is anyone connoting Vietnam right about now? If not, are you from another planet, or one of Clinton insiders?
Count Mr. Kuperman in among such "aliens." For, in his next breath, your OpEd writer adds, the Clinton administration "has no business flexing its muscles at Rambouillet" unless it had a stomach for such an open-ended, long-term, commitment of American troops. Which "I suspect it does not."
Bull! Remove the humanitarian fig leaves, and Washington's Rambouillet Kosovo proposal is nothing but a call for an open-ended, long-term, commitment of American troops to Vietnam... oops, I meant the Balkans... oops, I meant Kosovo. Just like Bosnia, Kosovo would be a $2 billion per year or so burden to the American taxpayers, even without the cost of body bags, or that of their precious content - our sons and daughters.
As a triple U.S. veteran (China-Korea-Vietnam) recently put it in his letter to me, "I never would have believed I would say the following: WE NEED TO GET OUR ASSES KICKED FOR BEING IN KOSOVO. You would think we would have learned in the above mentioned conflicts."
Also check out... "Debt Is Good! Really?," "Kosovo: Another Vietnam?", "Banality of Bombings", "Greek Archbishop: Stop This NATO Attack," "You Were Wrong About Gen. Perisic", "New York Times' Kosovo News Manipulation", "Plus, Another Kosovo News Cover-up", "Embarrassed About Such 'Serbs'," "Put the UN Justice on Trial", "Another Wall Street Bailout, Another Main Street Sellout", "Does WSJ Dance to Wall St. Bankers' Tunes?", "Clinton Fiddles While Milosevic Burns", "Let the Bombing Begin? Not!" , "What's Good for the Goose..." and "Journal's Rotten Apples" (Wall Street Journal); and "Stock buybacks: Wall St.'s Duping of Main St.", Business Week).