To whom...,
We on the left are often accused of being conspiracy theorists but tow things are undeniably true. First, the U.S. Air Force hit what it was aiming at precisely. That much the Air Force itself states. Second, it is unbelievable to think the the Central Intelligence Agency does not know the location of a Chinese embassy. We are, after all, carrying on a very public investigation of possible Chinese military espionage *even now*. If there is one thing the CIA would clearly know, it is the address of Chinese embassies around the world.
There are only two conclusions to be made after the embassy-bombing incident. One is that the United States and NATO are hopelessly lacking in intelligence (in both senses) and are therefore unfit to carry on the fight. It is pointless, dangerous, and self-destructive to fire a gun at a supposed enemy without aiming it first. Logic dictates and Viet Nam proved that there is no benefit in indiscriminate firing of weapons unless one's objective is total occupation of the target region. Even in that circumstance, bad intelligence invariably costs the lives of one's own and friendly soldiers. This is a minimum critique.
The other conclusion is that the bombing was deliberate. This, given Clinton's record in recent bombings, is an entirely credible conclusion. Sending a message of this kind to the Chinese now, after they have openly rebuffed U.S. economic diplomacy, embarrassed the administration with espionage, and shown their intent to be contentious generally, risks the U.S. little. At worst it reminds the Chinese, as we have reminded the Russians in Kosovo, that a nuclear arsenal cannot be parlayed into political leverage after the Cold War. The United States has made it clear that we are the big, crazy, 300-pound gorilla on the block and we are not afraid to use force (note: I say "we" simply because I take responsibility for my government's actions even if it's just because I have failed to protest them loudly and convincingly enough).
The simple benefit is that the bombing likely takes the United Nations out of the Kosovo picture. The Chinese will probably veto anything that comes to the table and therefore the Russians will have to negotiate a NATO-plus-Russia deal or a G-7-plus-Russia deal if they want to be a player. This would mean, if we take STRATFOR's analysis of Russia and China to be at all credible, that the Clinton administration has adopted a risky but reasonable strategy. They try to make Russia choose between cozying up to China and playing peacemaker for Europe. Whether such a strategy would work or not is another question but it is a strategy that makes some sense on paper.
It's disturbing to live in a country whose administration uses feels free to commit acts of war in the pursuit of its political ends. It is especially disturbing to live in a country whose administration may now have extended that military-use policy to acts of war against a nuclear power. Frankly though, I'm more comfortable thinking that the Clinton administration is engaging in illicit bombing than bombing without maps. At least it doesn't hold open the possibility that there may be a war machine running with nobody at the driver's seat.
peace