examining a victory in the mouth 10 of june, 1999 by johnmichael patrick monty monteith

I have this nasty habit of listening to National Public Radio in the morning. Nasty habit because I often find myself shouting at inanimate objects, most notably my radio, in the early hours. The walls of the house are fairly thin, so neighbors often get to hear my tirade, and give me very odd looks as I walk out to start my morning commute. Neighbors know I live alone, and therefore I am either (a) yelling at myself, (b) yelling at my cat, or (c) had one cup of Earl Grey too many and am yelling at the Damn Radio again. (Your radio is called a ‘radio’, mine is called a ‘Damn Radio’. It is a brand name. Trust me.)

On the Damn Radio they were discussing the looming victory of NATO in the Balkans. The peace treaty has been signed by Serbia, and now the Serb forces are starting to pull out of Kosovo. What is perhaps even more astounding was how sound this victory was, since the deal agreed to is even more restrictive than what Milosevic could have signed a couple months back before the bombing began. In the old deal that Serbia did not agree to, Serb forces, numbered in the thousands, could have remained in Kosovo. Under the new plan, Serb forces of a few hundred will remain, and only as observers. In addition, NATO achieved virtually every goal they set out to, and perhaps more. British forces will number over 16,000 in Kosovo, American forces at approximately 7,000 with a total of around 40,000 NATO troops. All of this attained without a combat loss of a single NATO life. Truly an extraordinary feat.

With what can only be interpreted as a clear victory for NATO, even the residents of Serbia are asking ‘Why?” Why did they endure two months of bombing only to have signed a deal that leaves them worse off than the deal they could have signed before the bombings commenced? What did they achieve by not listening to NATO, and the United Nations? And some are even asking, quite openly, whether Milosevic should be allowed to stay in power. I suspect as the news of the atrocities he committed are learned and communicated when NATO moves into Kosovo that this anti-Milosevic sentiment will grow.

Even as I discuss all of the things to be proud of with this treaty, clearly the most important thing is that the Kosovo ethnic Albanians will be able to return to what is left of their homes and towns. Perhaps even be able to return and re-build before the winter sets in. Those that have sought refuge in the surrounding countries are clearly looking forward to being able to return and re-build their lives. And that was, after all, what this was about.

So, with so much to be happy about, why was I yelling at the radio? Perhaps because all of the stories and discussions made it sound as though we had made the wrong decisions. Example:

Question: “So, not a single NATO troop died to attain this victory. Does that mean we should have used ground forces?”

Answer: “Why, yes, Bob, I believe it does. If we had sent in ground forces, this campaign could have been ended much sooner. Clearly fighting a war without any loss of life is a sign that some poor decisions were made in the campaign.”

What the %#@&?! If I was interviewing this person, I can think of a number of responses to such an answer, although all of them would have found me with a substantial FCC fine. If that was not enough to deter me from ever listening to a news program again, I listened to other shows throughout the day, and they all pretty much found the same conclusion: That a war victory without loss of life is a poorly run war.

I am forced to ask, how many lives lost constitute a 'well run' war? The Gulf War had a few dozen lives lost, was that too few? What about Vietnam? Too many, or too few, or perhaps just right?

I will admit that the campaign on Serbia looked more like leaders of the world sitting on their couch and pressing the remote control buttons to launch bombs. (Might explain that little accident with the Chinese Embassy. ‘Oops. I meant to press the volume button.’) However, this war was extremely clean, on both sides. The smart bombs and missiles used were very accurate, and caused very few civilian casualties, when you factor in the extreme amount of missions flown. The official casualty total is not in yet, but even with the numbers that are, it has been the most efficient war in the history of the planet when missions and damage are factored in. The most efficient war ever. But, we did not lose any lives, so obviously it could have been more efficient, right?

I agree that if ground troops had been sent in, perhaps the war would have ended sooner. There is no question that more lives would have been lost on NATO's side if that were done. But who actually knows how much sooner, or what the cost of life to NATO would have been? Perhaps a few dozen lives lost, maybe a few hundred, maybe more? Would that have somehow been a ‘better’ victory? And how many civilians would have been saved by this move? More or less than what would have been lost by NATO? And should NATO have suffered the losses rather than the civilians? And what about the political fall out of NATO invading a country?

I know that journalists and others need to find something to complain about on this campaign. It is difficult to find problems with such an efficient war. Yet, whether we like it or not, aside from a few mistakes by the CIA in intelligence information, there really is little to protest about. Arguably, of course, this was the most successful war ever. NATO walked in with a clear agenda, bombed the hell out of Serbia for two months, and achieved all of the goals without any loss of life in combat. What more do we want? Perhaps we would have been more happy with an AVON lady hit squad that delivered bombs to key targets in color coordinated hand bags, thereby reducing civilian casualties, and increasing world awareness of designer accessories.

Certainly, as successful as it was, the victory was equally hallow. But even if NATO had lost lives, even if the war had ended a few weeks earlier, even if AVON had coordinated the fashion end of the bombing campaign, the victory would still not have been ticker-tape parade material. NATO knew from the beginning that there was nothing in this for them. We did this because it was the right thing to do. If we did not do this, we would have a tough time looking at ourselves in the morning. The atrocities being committed had to be stopped, and once they were, we would have nothing to show for it other than being able to look in that mirror with a clean conscience.

Unfortunately it seems that many radio celebs and political commentators were hoping for something a little more substantial than a moral victory. Guess what, folks? That’s all you are going to get. And that is enough for me.