Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat by Wesley K. Clark, Wesley Clark

From Barnes & Noble

General Clark, who directed NATO's successful operations in Kosovo, recounts the background and conduct of that conflict and reveals its lessons for the future of 21st-century warfare.

From the Publisher

"Ugly, shocking, frightening, war came to Europe once more in March 1999. The world watched in dismay as Yugoslavia's military machine attacked its own citizens in the province of Kosovo. Pictures of refugees fleeing and stories of murder and rape flashed to the top of the news. As had happened so often since the end of the Cold War, ethnic conflict had turned deadly, and the great powers seemed reluctant to get involved." "This time, however, the United States and its allies intervened. Using an innovative, high-technology air operation, NATO brought modern military power to bear against Serb forces in the field and the machinery of repression that backed them up. It was modern war - limited in scope, measured in effect, extraordinarily complex in execution. And in the end, after ten weeks of steadily intensifying air attack, the Yugoslav troops were withdrawn and the Kosovar Albanians returned to their homes. Remarkably, not a single American was killed in combat." "The American commander who oversaw this massive military effort and managed the often incompatible demands of NATO's nineteen governments was General Wesley K. Clark. In Waging Modern War, Clark recounts not only the events that led to armed conflict, but also the context within which he made the key strategic decisions. He also describes, for the first time, how he walked the tightrope of high diplomacy and military strategy and navigated the crushing restraints of domestic politics. As the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, Clark faced a task far more daunting than simply when and where to deploy his forces and weapons. He also had to mediate numerous conflicts that threatened to derail the alliance's efforts against the regime of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic - conflicts between the Europeans and the Americans, between the policy makers and the journalists, between the diplomats and the military men. Clark takes us behind the scenes for an unprecedented view of decision making in real ti

Booknews

US Army general Clark was Supreme Commander, Europe from 1997 to 2000 recounts how he led the might of many nations against a tyrant who massacred people for breakfast, and established in his place a multi- cultural democracy in which everyone is now friendly and rich. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)

Product Details

• Read an Excerpt

Read an Excerpt

I looked over at the picture on the wall of our first Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. I looked down at my desk, the same desk he had used to sign the activation orders of our command almost fifty years ago. I was the first of his successors to have to lead NATO to war, and I wasn't going to lose.

As a first year cadet at West Point, in 1962, I was required to memorize General Douglas MacArthur's words, and recite them again and again. "From the Far East I send you one single thought, one sole idea, written in red on every beachhead from Australia to Tokyo: there is no substitute for victory!" I never forgot it.

In most of the twentieth century, wars were fought for territory. The survival of nations--or at least their systems of government--was at stake. It was national warfare, relying on the mobilization of populations, vast conscript armies, and national controls over the economy and the flow of public information. Military men were trained to fight to win.

This was the form of warfare that Napoleon had taught us, nation-state against nation-state. Cohorts of young men were organized and drafted; large, bureaucratic organizations were created; state ministries were created just to be able to handle the railroad planning required in case of mobilization for war. And then, the enemy was to be brought to climactic battle, a battle of annihilation.

Twentieth-century war seldom matched its Napoleonic ideal in terms of decisiveness. But the mobilization of the nation-state, the conscription, the large organizations, the extreme destructiveness of the weaponry, the focus on battle and the enemy force, the prodigious losses of men and material, and the dreadful burdens to the civilian populations were certainly features of war as we knew it.

NATO itself was itself the product of such a war. The Allies in World War II called for the unconditional surrender of Germany, Italy, and Japan, making that war a fight to the finish. Civilian populations were targeted by all sides, and millions died. In a war that saw the first and only use of the atomic bomb, almost no weapon was spared. And when it was over, and Europe and the United States sensed the threat of Joseph Stalin and the Red Army, NATO was established to protect against another such terrible conflict.

Operation Allied Force wasn't to be that kind of war. NATO and its member nations weren't under attack. This war wasn't about national survival, or the survival of our democratic systems of government. We didn't mobilize our populations or do anything in particular to affect the control of information. The conscripts remaining among the NATO nations never came close to getting to the fight, because there were national laws in most cases prohibiting their service outside their own countries. And the economies of the West weren't taken over by governments or turned to war production. Civilian populations and facilities were not targeted for destruction.

This was a different kind of war--a modern war. It was limited, carefully constrained in geography, scope, weaponry, and effects. Every measure of escalation was excruciatingly weighed by NATO. Diplomatic efforts continued during the conflict, even with the adversary itself. Measures of confidence-building and other conflict-prevention initiatives derived from the Cold War were brought into play. The highest possible technology was in use, but only in carefully restrained ways. There was extraordinary concern for military losses, on all sides. Even damage to property was carefully considered. And "victory" was carefully defined.