[Webstral]

I’ve attached an image of the most relevant page of Going Home for ease of reference.

I’m forced to take Legbreaker’s interpretation of the language. While we don’t have a timeframe given for the discovery of the all-important drifting oil tanker, we’re told that following the failure of the Summer 2000 offensive by NATO and in anticipation of the harshness of the coming winter, SACEUR has decided to launch Operation Omega. In the strictest sense, I think the language supports Leg’s assertion.

This much said, there’s some wiggle room. The language suggests a cause-and-effect relationship between the failure of the offensive, the disintegration of the remaining forces, the anticipated vicissitudes of the coming winter, and SACEUR’s decision. The thinking regarding the hoped-for outcome of the offensive could be a major factor. For instance, control over Baltic fishing is given as a goal of the offensive someplace I can’t remember. Control over the Baltic fishing means food on the plates of NATO troops. A victory in mid-2000, combined with the promise of food throughout the winter, might well have put a rosier forecast on the integrity of NATO forces. A good trial lawyer, looking to establish reasonable doubt in the cause-and-effect relationship that supports Leg’s case, might say that we don’t really know what disposition SACEUR expected at the end of the offensive. We can say for certain that following a major defeat in the field and an untenable food/shelter situation in the coming winter came before SACEUR’s decision to use the discovered oil to initiate Operation Omega in late 2000. We don’t know that a major victory in the field and an improved food supply derived from controlling more Baltic fishing wouldn’t have caused SACEUR to try to keep US forces in Europe for another year. I’m not throwing my support behind this interpretation at this point; I’m just acknowledging that there are interpretations of the language that might support such an interpretation, albeit with some mental contortions.

Edit: It appears my attachment didn't take. I'll have to sort it out or quote the material another way.