No soldier of modern times has managed to improve on the philosophy of the battlefield and its aftermath expounded by Karl Von Clausewitz more than a hundred years ago. His tactical theories may have been overtaken by technological advances but his statement that "war is nothing but the continuation of politics with the admixture of other means" remains a most succinct definition of armed conflict. Soldiers, particularly senior officers, often rail at the restrictions imposed upon them by politicians but in doing so they should remember the statement of the old Prussian and its inherent admission that it is the politicians who are in charge. The chain of command is clear. The soldiers are the servants of the politicians and the politicians are the servants of those who elected them. There can be no tampering with this order of precedence in a democracy.
Reports of serious disagreement between NATO's supreme commander, the US Gen Wesley Clark, and his British subordinate, Gen Sir Michael Jackson, are therefore disturbing. After the settlement negotiated by Finland's President, Mr Martti Ahtisaari, and Russia's special envoy, Mr Viktor Chernomyrdin, was given the force of international law by the United Nations, Russian troops made a dash for Pristina airport. According to reports which have not been denied, either by NATO or the US Department of Defense, Gen Clark ordered Gen Jackson to take military action to prevent the arrival of the Russians. Gen Jackson refused to obey. The officer in charge of NATO's southern command, the US Admiral James Ellis, was, according to the reports, asked to block the airport's runway to prevent the arrival of more Russian soldiers. He too refused.
Gen Jackson and Admiral Ellis appear to have a better appreciation of Clausewitz than Gen Clark. They asked for the support of their political leaders because they knew they would get it, which they did. Reports that Gen Jackson told Gen Clark: "I am not going to start World War III for you," may be exaggerated. There was never any danger of Russia unleashing its still formidable nuclear arsenal for any reason other than in response to a major attack on its own territory and people. The diplomatic consequences could, however, have been disastrous. NATO's eastward expansion had already engendered mistrust in Moscow, even amongst the most liberal of Russia's politicians. The bombing campaign against Yugoslavia heightened tensions further, particularly as it began just a week after NATO had admitted Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary as members.
Despite its worries about NATO's advances towards its borders Russia agreed to play a major role in bringing about an end to the Yugoslav conflict. For its peacekeeping forces to have been treated as enemies would have damaged its relations with NATO states to an unprecedented degree. The tactics attributed to Gen Clark would not have led to World War III. But they could have marked a renewal of the Cold War.