C. Souzis,
I really think it is entirely credible to believe that this was a deliberate bombing. Ask any policeman what he thinks of coincidences. They are evidence of crimes, . C. Souzis is exactly on track pointing out that if this is bad luck it is monstrously rare bad luck. Moreover, this is a NATO operation, not just a U.S. operation, so that even though the operation uses American air power, it has complete access to NATO intelligence, that being *European* intelligence. We must therefore believe that not only American but British, French, German and *Italian* maps of the region would have to be wrong and wrong in that specific way. That is a coincidence of the least likely kind.
Let's consider more benefits. I still think the primary benefit is that the bombing means Russia cannot bring a peace deal to the U.N.. It will have to bring the deal to NATO (unless the Chinese forgive and forget rather quick). A NATO deal is what the U.S. wants. China will also appear obstructionist in the Security Council. And, as Chomsky points out, America has consistently sought to undermine the influence of the U.N..
Next, China *embarrassed* the Clinton administration over the WTO. Remember that bringing China into the WTO and the globalist economy has been the core rationale for the Clinton administration accepting scandals and bad PR at the hands of the Chinese. This is pure administration-think. I'm sure nobody outside the Beltway feels that moving China into the WTO is a recompense for attempted bribery, espionage, Tibet, and Tienamen Square, but the Clinton administration had hung their hat on that idea. China in the WTO was their centerpiece East Asian policy. As I have said before, the one thing you never want to do is embarrass the American government. Ask the Cubans.
After that, consider the fact that the anniversary of the Tienamen square massacre is coming up at the same time the Clinton administration is being forced to face what may have been a major Chinese espionage (by the way, although I don't like the Chinese regime, I don't blame the Chinese for their political influence-peddling or espionage, that's the way the game is played). Now, in response to the inevitable questions why the administration isn't commemorating the massacre with more criticism of the Chinese administration, they can point to their terrible "mistake". What's more, the Clinton administration can be confident that the only demonstrations in the streets of China will be anti-American, and thus not destabilizing to the Zhu regime.
Finally, this was simply a unique opportunity. How often do you get a free chance to send a nuclear power a strong, military message? Since the Bush administration, the "why not?" approach to foreign policy has dominated. If an American administration see an opportunity to use force without an acute downside, they take it. If people think we're crazy, as has been noted, that is okay with us.
peace