WASHINGTON, APRIL 2: NATO forces are considering what would amount to an indirect invasion and ``liberation'' of Kosovo from Serbian control, according to reports emerging from the western media in Europe.Under a plan currently being discussed in western diplomatic circles, NATO troops would escort ethnic Albanians back into Kosovo after Serbian forces there have forced out by bombing.
The Kosovars would then set up a self-governing protectorate under allied supervision, a senior NATO diplomat in Brussels was quoted as saying.
NATO officials have repeatedly ruled out a direct invasion of Kosovo and the US has balked at committing ground troops to any action in the current theatre. But an ``escort'' service to the displaced Albanian Kosovars would amount to an indirect invasion, something that may be much more palatable to the American public.
A senior US official in Washington was quoted as saying in the New York Times, which first reported the story, that much would depend on whether theground force will be able to enter Kosovo without facing serious military resistance from remaining Serbian troops.
``The line that has not been crossed in Washington is whether we would deploy such a force in anything but a permissive environment. That is, an environment in which hostile forces have been removed,'' the official said.
US actions on Thursday indicated that it would step up the tempo of the bombing. A dozen new F-117A Stealth bombers were flown out of an American air base here and added to the eleven already in the region. NATO forces also deployed for the first time heavier B-1 bombers aimed at flattening the infrastructure in Yugoslavia's key cities.
Meanwhile, US officials anxiously watched to see if the domestic tide of public opinion would swing in favour of more active engagement in the region after Americans woke up Thursday >morning to television pictures of three US soldiers captured by Serbian forces.
There was an uprush of patriotism and flag-waving throughout the country astelevision networks broadcast images of the three visibly bruised and battered soldiers hundreds of times through the day. TV cameras invaded the hometowns of the soldiers and interviewed their parents, neighbours and friends.
President Clinton himself led a chorus of concern, warning Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic that he and his government would be held personally responsible for the well-being of the soldiers. ``The United States takes care of its own,'' Clinton warned Milosevic at a previously scheduled rally in Norfolk, a naval shipping town.
But there was as yet no commitment from Clinton for inducting ground troops. Despite the drama involving US soldiers there is still no groundswell of public opinion in favour of more active engagement.
Latest opinion polls show a marginal upswing to 53 per cent of Americans supporting the NATO strikes, but it is still way short of the 75 per cent approval rate for the air strikes against Iraq. Most Americans do not even know where Kosovo is on the worldmap, let alone understand why the US got involved in the conflict.
Officials are holding their breath to see what happens next in Yugoslavia to the US soldiers and what kind of pictures come out of there. In the past, television pictures -- whether of US involvement in Vietnam or US soldiers in Somalia -- decisively changed public mood, mostly against involvement.
According to accounts in Washington, President Clinton is said to be sleepless and exhausted as he keeps tabs on the snowballing crisis. His administration is taking a hammering from critics for not having ``thought through'' the endgame or exit strategy while his supporters are saying he is making the best of bad options.
There has been talk that Clinton was rushed into the bombing option by his foreign policy team against saner counsel from the military and the intelligence community. The issue has now become mired in domestic politics given that half a dozen prominent politicians have already announced their intention to run for thePresidency in an election still some 18 months away.
Most, if not all of them, are against inducting ground troops because it may not go down well with the electorate.
In the current dispensation, Vice-President Al Gore, who has virtually pocketed the Democratic nomination, is said to be vehemently against inducting ground troops, fearful that getting bogged down in Yugoslavia will most certainly sink his chances in 2000.
Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.