Letter: Nato's regrets
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Robert Fisk's article "Unmoved by tragedy, Nato sends its regrets" (3 May) seems a little confused.
"We do not want a ground war and there will not be a ground war. ... But we do not say so." I beg your pardon? That is precisely what the British and United States governments said very clearly at the start of the war. This position is modifying, if all too slowly, as time shows the public to be becoming more tolerant of the prospect of casualties for the purpose of defending the Kosovars.
At the beginning of this war, Nato did not have the troops positioned to carry out an invasion of Yugoslavia. Attempting to do that with the force positioned to move in as ceasefire monitors would probably have failed with heavy casualties (assuming the countries in which they were based allowed them to be so used). The Kosovars would be no better off than now (possibly worse) and public opinion, now expecting defeat and heavy casualties, would be less likely to support further action.
We certainly need to move much more quickly to build up forces that could carry out an invasion if necessary, but Mr Fisk seems to assume that such an invasion will be without civilian casualties. If he believes that, he is even more naive than those who believe that a guided weapon will always hit its target.
Robert Fisk is right to remind us that innocent people are dying in Serbia because of our actions. We do bear the responsibility for them, and we know it. He is wrong to equate deaths caused accidentally in trying to prevent far more numerous and deliberate murders with those same murders.
He is scathing about Nato's regrets. We have yet to hear even regrets from Serbia about the deaths its actions have caused.
KEVIN LOGAN
Cheltenham,
Gloucestershire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments