The New York Times

Friday, June 25, 1999

The Belgrade Bombing Mystery

Seven weeks after NATO bombs hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Congress and the American people have yet to receive a full explanation of the mistaken attack. The absence of information only compounds the original error and fuels speculation that the bombing was deliberate. The White House should insist that the various agencies involved, including the Pentagon, which has just announced its own review, pull together everything they know and make a public presentation as soon as possible.

Lethal mistakes are sometimes made in combat, and this appears to be such a case. But a detailed reconstruction of the targeting work is the only way the Administration can eliminate doubts in Washington and Beijing. Confidential Administration briefings given to China and to Congress have been frustratingly incomplete. Important questions remain unanswered about how the embassy building was misidentified and why multiple target reviews did not pick up the error. Senator Richard Shelby and Representative Porter Goss, chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees, are right to demand a fuller accounting.

Secrecy does not seem to be an overriding issue. The bombing apparently grew out of mundane mistakes, like outdated maps, transposed street addresses and breakdowns in the bureaucratic communications. The multiple errors were made by more than one Government department.

At the time of the bombing, NATO political leaders were looking for additional military targets, and the Central Intelligence Agency had been called in to suggest appropriate locations. The C.I.A.'s recommendations were then reviewed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon and by American military commanders in Europe.

A report by the C.I.A.'s Inspector General has found that an agency analyst familiar with downtown Belgrade "persistently" questioned whether the correct location of the intended target -- a Yugoslav arms agency -- had been selected. Yet his repeated warnings were somehow overlooked.

The Pentagon only added to the confusion yesterday by suggesting that the analyst thought that the building selected, though not the arms agency headquarters, may still have been a legitimate target. In addition to the C.I.A. inquiry, finding answers will require an unsparing Pentagon investigation as well.

The American people have a right to know what went wrong in this embarrassing episode and to have credible assurances that the same mistakes are not likely to happen again.