Letter: Placing troops in Yugoslavia sticky proposition

Wednesday, April 7, 1999 | 11:54 a.m.

So now they're talking about "sending in troops." This makes me wonder -- can anyone read a map?

Kosovo is land-locked. We can't "send in the troops" without invading or using a neutral country or two. And based on our track-record for steadfastness, what country in its collective right mind would want to let the U.S./NATO march 200,000 troops through its country?

Airborne ops are fine for small units -- but for the long-term placement and support of 200,000-plus troops, along with ammunition, heavy equipment, supplies, etc., we need deep-water ports, roads and rail systems.

That means, just to get to Kosovo, we'd need to "invade" Albania, or Montenegro (technically part of Yugoslavia, but not part of the Serbian cleansing of Kosovo), or march through NATO ally Greece, then invade Macedonia.

Or we could go in through Bosnia/Herzegovenia, then invade Serbia to get to Kosovo.

None of these options are sane -- each would create a much larger war -- but there is no other alternative to enable us to get well-supported troops into land-locked Kosovo.

NED BARNETT

archive