DAR
That’s nice. Papa Bush put 28,000 US troops on the ground. Bush got us in, Clinton got us out.

Note:

“President George H. Bush orders 28,000 U.S. troops to Somalia, a war-torn East African nation where rival warlords were preventing the distribution of humanitarian aid to thousands of starving Somalis… the controversial mission stretched on for 15 months before being abruptly called off by President Bill Clinton in 1993.”

BIGD: Clinton did not “get us out” he left after 18 combat deaths.>>

DAR
Now you want to quibble that there is a difference between “he left” but “did not get us out”?

BIGD: That emboldened bin Laden and that is why we got 9/11. In bin Laden’s own words.>>

DAR
Getting us out of Somalia is “why we got 9/11? Really?

We got 9/11 because of the incompetence and intelligence failure of GW’s administration.

If you want to start quoting Bin Laden’s words you will find they implicate your Bush more than anyone else. He laid out his strategy, mailed a copy to him and then Bush fell in every trap Bin Laden laid. And now we pay, in lives, prestige and treasure.

BIGD: “Sorry Darrel, you are acting like it was solely an air war. NATO finally put troops on the ground.>>

DAR
Of course. As the leader of NATO said, the proclaimed goal of the (less than 3 month) bombing mission was:

“Serbs out, peacekeepers in, refugees back”

And they did it. Zeros combat deaths. Hence the reason this is such a good example of going to war and not losing anyone on your team.

BIGD: I was not for action at all at the time.>>

DAR
Of course you weren’t. Hence your breathtaking hypocrisy for now criticizing Clinton for, and I quote:

“waiting the way he did”

and

“not having troops on the ground”

and

“they were put on the ground much too late.”

D.

I was not for action at all at the time.

DAR
Clinton fought the republicans tooth and nail just to do the air war. Would you like to see the quotes of what the republicans of the time were saying? Here’s a taste. There are lots more. They called it nation building and ridiculed it ceaselessly. Al Franken (now senator) doc**ented a bunch of these in his best seller “Lying Liars.” I have a copy (signed).

Bush even got a little dig about this in the debates:

“If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road. I’m going
to prevent that.”
–Bush v Gore debate, October 3, 2000

Are you telling me, that at the time, YOU were for the US conducting a ground war there? Really? I am really really skeptical of that. Do do have any old comments/posts from then?

BIGD: “…no one ever wins a war with air alone.>>

DAR
We did. Ask Milosevic. Objectives accomplished. ZERO combat deaths. Truly incredible.

BIGD: “That is probably one of the reasons we still have troops there today.”>>

DAR
No, that has nothing to do with the reason. Stabilizing forces would have been there for a long time either way and if there was a ground war (which was not politically possible) there would have been many more killed and perhaps a bloodbath.

BIGD: Clinton had use threat of force so much no one paid attention to him.>>

DAR
That’s just nonsense! He used force, and it worked. And with respect to the safety of our troops, which should be a priority, it worked perfectly.

BIGD: The withdrawal from Somalia is what led to 9/11.>>

DAR
Papa Bush got us in Somali. Clinton got us out.

D.

I am happy that we did well and no one died (in combat) but no one ever wins a war with air alone.

That is probably one of the reasons we still have troops there today. They were put on the ground much too late.

Clinton had use threat of force so much no one paid attention to him. The withdrawal from Somalia is what led to 9/11.

The 38,000 sorties were not all ours.

And yes, if someone flew 38,000 sorties over America (as if anyone could) then I would say they were declaring war on us. That is why I say we are at war with the Islamic extremists who attacked us on 9/11. That was an act of war despite the morons who want to treat it like a crime.

War crime maybe because it targeted civilians.

DAR
This action, for obviously reasons, is routinely referred to as war (regardless of your quibble about whether congress was involved).
I bet if someone ran 38,000 bombing missions over America, you wouldn’t quibble about whether the country attacking had followed a certain legal procedure? I think you would call it war.

BIGD: I think this campaign involved air attacked to the tune of nearly 40,000 sorties.>>

DAR
Right. That’s what the “38,000″ in my post responds to. See also “Air War” at my link. Oops, they called it “war” (repeatedly).

BIGD: I don’t recall our troops being on the ground fighting in ground combat.>>

DAR
Hence, the brilliance. Blake said he likes it when our side doesn’t die, and the other side does. So I referred him to this excellent example. Unfortunately he can’t be proud of this American success because the president wasn’t a member of the correct party.

BIGD: “…when you only do air strikes you are not going to have many casualties.”>>

DAR
Hence the brilliance.

BIGD: Clinton also made things worse because he did not want to use force.>>

DAR
He didn’t want to but he *did.* The objectives were accomplished and we lost no one in combat. How pray, is that making “things worse?”

Bigd: “He was hoping that making threats of force would settle things.”>>

DAR
Oh the horror! Settling things without killing and blowing things up. A neo-con nightmare.

Actually, this is the benefit of spending so much on the military. You can get things done without actually having to kill people. Bush wasn’t that smart. So he tipped our hand and showed the entire world how badly he could screw things up and tie us down in an attack, on a little country, with the GDP of… Kentucky. Now they know.

And your notion of only “making threats” hardly applies to Kosovo. We followed through. You didn’t read your own article again!

Bigd: [Weakly Standard quote]
“Now presumably Milosevic must face the consequences. But what are the consequences? Well, that takes a little explaining, because as Saddam Hussein can tell you, in Bill Clinton’s world the American response to flagrant international misbehavior is not exactly what you would call swift and sure.”>>

DAR
Dear BigDog. Your stupid article is from February 1999. The “NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was between March 24 and June 10, 1999.”

Had you been paying attention you would have noticed that your ten year old article was FLATLY REFUTED a month and a half after it was written.

It now reads as parody. That is, someone making fun of rightwingers who got it wrong.

“Absolutely no one in the world is falling for this Clintonian bluff anymore, least of all Milosevic.”

Milosevic found out Clinton wasn’t bluffing. When are you going to find out?

D.
——————–
“Milošević… was arrested by Yugoslav federal authorities on Saturday, 31 March 2001.” He died in prison.

I think this campaign involved air attacked to the tune of nearly 40,000 sorties.

I don’t recall our troops being on the ground fighting in ground combat.

The military planned it, not Clinton. And when you only do air strikes you are not going to have many casualties.

Funny though, I always hear you guys criticize Bush for “trumping” up the reason for war.

Clinton was accused of the same thing and I don’t recall hearing you complain when you tell us how great he was in providing air support for SOMEONE else’s war.

Clinton also made things worse because he did not want to use force. He was hoping that making threats of force would settle things.

That did not happen. Just like with Bin Laden, he was seen as a paper tiger (which gave us 9/11).

Now presumably Milosevic must face the consequences. But what are the consequences? Well, that takes a little explaining, because as Saddam Hussein can tell you, in Bill Clinton’s world the American response to flagrant international misbehavior is not exactly what you would call swift and sure.

Absolutely no one in the world is falling for this Clintonian bluff anymore, least of all Milosevic. But the administration persists in believing that the “threat of force” is actually a key tool of policy.

Source

DAR
Transparent quibble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Bombardment_in_the_Kosovo_War

He goes to war, accomplishes the mission, and no one lost in combat. People who are not so stuck in irrational bitter partisan ideology can see this as the success it was.

D.
—————–
“The NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia was NATO’s military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War.”

“over 38,000 combat missions”

DAR
It used to be “perfectly legal” to kill slaves and do all sorts of abhorrent things. Best not to confuse moral issues with legal issues.

Abortion is perfectly legal, this doesn’t mean it is morally right. Two completely separate issues.

We used to understand torture was wrong. Now, because of the moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration, there has been some confusion. No longer. Because of the moral decency of our current president (which is in line with the American people*) this has stopped. Note:

***
On January 15, 2009 the U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, told his Senate confirmation hearing that waterboarding is torture and the President cannot authorize it.[73][74][75][76] In a press conference on April 30, President Obama also stated, “I believe waterboarding was torture, and it was a mistake.”[77] LINK

Bigd: “I am not opposed to waterboarding if they say it is legal.”>>

DAR
So your moral system is run by… politicians. If “they” (Congress!) says it’s okay, you’re not opposed to it. Got it.

As Twain said:

“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself.” –Mark Twain

D.
————-
*Note:

“in a new poll (April ‘09) the New York Times and CBS News found that 71 percent of Americans consider waterboarding to be “a form of torture”

LINK