Kosovo defies history and strategy

Then militarylogic. NATO has got involved in a campaign in which there is no honourable exit route. In military parlance an honourable exit is one that is backed by an identifiable and a thorough, systematic success. For johnny Bhoop Singh to believe it to be a success the results achieved have to justify the scale of efforts. Which then implies that all objectives set out before launching operations have to be met before the cessation of hostilities. Therefore, when the objectives have not been spelt out, and it is only air power that is being used thus far, what is hoped to be achieved is unclear. When that be the case, how NATO could disengage without a serious loss of face is incomprehensible. Without, therefore, enlarging the conflict no tangible military result is possible. And enlarging means engagement of troops at the ground. The multi-tattooed soldier may provide great soundbites for television, but when it comes to an actual firefight the quotes which come out then will be very different. Asking for objectivesand looking for a result will then begin the questioning process. Which then brings us to basic peacekeeping doctrines. And in a nutshell, peace has to be maintained, on ground, between squabbling people. Airspace is in any case peaceful, it is the ground that is nasty. So how NATO seeks to bring about peace in Kosovo, and ensure it, only through the use of air assets is a riddle that cannot be solved by any military doctrine, pamphlet or precis.

Military interventions without the expressed sanction of international law and institutions, and justified by oft-repeated television labels like genocide, massacres and ethnic cleansing not even remotely matching what transpired in East Pakistan, Cambodia and Rwanda only open doors that lead to a globo-cop culture. That is good neither for the Dirty Harry aspirant nor the Punk. Such interventions invariably lead to a spiral of involvement, which in order to avoid now requires a dishonourable exit. Conventional militaries cannot afford that, not twice in 25 years.So the violation of international law will continue, the sanctity of institutions created after the second great war will continue to erode. And all this points to a date in the future, where at another point in time and place under the sun, a major regional power will decide to intervene in another land, claiming humanitarian relief and the precedence of Kosovo 1999. That power could well be armed with nuclear capable missiles, and an economy to match. What would NATO and its established `out-of-area-operations’ doctrine then do? Interesting, but also worrying.

Before that future global crisis, there are more worries to come the way of Europe. Besides the sustained destruction of Yugoslavia’s infrastructure, NATO’s other significant achievement till date has been to create an enormous refugee problem. Whatever the western television channels and newspapers might say, the facts on ground clearly suggest that the exodus began only after the air blitz got underway. So the Kosovar Alabanians move to Macedoniaand Montenegro. If the refugees don’t go back, both republics are likely to face serious ethnic problems. And in order for them to go back the refugees have to be provided security. And security cannot be guaranteed by dominating airspace, it requires the presence of that much-tabooed soldier and his willingness to trade lead. Elementary military logic and high-school history lessons.