Kosovo WI scenarios

Given that this yr's the 5th anniversary of the Kosovo crisis (doggone- it's been that long already ?), thought I'd post a few WIs of March-June 1999, such as:

WI the US and NATO had been less dictatorial to Milosevic during the Rambouillet conference, and didn't demand the unfettered presence of Western NATO forces on sovereign Yugoslav territory ? Say if there'd been some concessions made to Yugoslavia's demands for a peacekeeping force comprising Russian, Greek and neutral Western European troops after the JNA withdrew from Kosovo ?

WI NATO had deployed ground combat forces into Kosovo during Op ALLIED FORCE- whether a few SOF teams to pinpoint targets for NATO warplanes and assist the KLA in their guerilla war against the JNA and Serb paramilitary and police units, or up to 30,000 troops deploying from Macedonia and Albania to secure safe areas for Kosovar refugees (as was proposed in 1 TIME magazine article I read) ?

WI there'd been an armed clash between the Gurkhas of 5th Airborne Bde and the Russian para contingent at Pristina airport in June after the Kumanovo agreement had been signed and Serb forces had begun withdrawing ? Could this confrontation have occurred had Gen Wesley Clark been more assertive in demanding the NATO takeover of the airfield, over the objections of British Gen Sir Mike Jackson ? Might there have been a WWIII ?

Ground forces in Kosovo would have resulted in a NATO bloody nose; most NATO commanders thought the Serb ground forces had been scattered or destroyed, and were VERY surprised to see intact armored formations leaving Kosovo once Milosevic submitted. NATO forces would be prepared for mopping-up, only to be faced with well-organized and -trained formations (albeit technologically inferior).

NATO would ultimately win in such a situation, but it'd absorb so many casualties as to cause domestic political problems in the coalition states--according to some stuff I read about Kosovo for a research paper I did, had Milosevic held out a little longer, the coalition would have collapsed.

On the matter of a clash between NATO and Russian forces at Pristina Airport, at the very least we wouldn't have a Clark Presidential candidacy in the US--he's running partially on Kosovo, and I don't think that'd work if he'd caused a skirmish between US and Russian troops.

Why would NATO forces encounter problems? Up until the very end British forces were ready to jump off into Kosovo and assumed they would face some resistance. One would imagine the ATO would allocate a lot of sorties to the invading force. The Serbs had no air cover and no hope.

If NATO had put SOF teams on the ground that could synchronise KLA action with NATO air strikes the war would have been over a lot quicker.

Later,

TAF

The Serbs lost two MiGs early in the campaign and thereafter didn't bother flying anything at NATO; however, if 30,000 NATO troops invade Yugoslavia, they might very well throw everything (including the kitchen sink) at the invaders. That air cover would probably be wiped out in short order, but it's better than nothing and might be able to hurt NATO.

Serb anti-aircraft units forced NATO jets to fly above 15,000 feet, limiting their attack capacity. That's probably the main reason so many Serbian units survived intact. That'll interfere with a NATO offensive quite a bit.

If a full invasion is mounted, Serb militia guys hiding in forests with the East Bloc version of the Stinger could down a lot of Apaches. The US lost a bunch in the recent Iraq episode (a few outright shoot-downs, plus a whole bunch so damaged they'd never fly again), and that was in an area with little ground cover. In mountainous, forested Kosovo, the Yugoslavs would give NATO hell before they were beaten.

Matt Quinn said:

On the matter of a clash between NATO and Russian forces at Pristina Airport, at the very least we wouldn't have a Clark Presidential candidacy in the US--he's running partially on Kosovo, and I don't think that'd work if he'd caused a skirmish between US and Russian troops.

Click to expand...

Eh, please correct if I'm wrong, but didn't general Clark ORDER the Brits to sieze and secure the airport? And what-his-name (Rose/de Bellieré(?)) flatly refused, something like not starting a war for you!?

I really do like Clark, even though he is far from being John MacCain , but this Kosova incident do has me worried somewhat! Is that typical for Clark or did he just lose his temper that one time?

Best regards!

- Bluenote.

Honeste vivere, alterum non ladere, suum cuique tribuere!

Yep, Clark ordered the British general Sir Michael Jackson to attack the Russians. General Jackson told him, "I'm not starting World War III for you," and though Clark kvetched endlessly, Jackson was backed up by everyone in the British command up to and including Tony Blair.

I've heard noises from some military people that Clark is a careerist and rather vain (he was told to "get off the f***ing TV" by the Secretary of Defense once), but I'm not entirely sure.

However, the Kosovo incident, when combined with the participation of some of his tanks at the suppression of the Branch Davidians at Waco, raises some nasty questions.

Matt Quinn said:

Serb anti-aircraft units forced NATO jets to fly above 15,000 feet, limiting their attack capacity.

Click to expand...

I think the 15.000 feet ceiling was more of a political take-no-risk-whatever-the-situation-deceision than a purely we-fear-the-Serbs-deceision made by the brass.

Best of regards!

- Bluenote.

Honeste vivere, alterum non ladere, suum cuique tribuere!

Matt Quinn said:

However, the Kosovo incident, when combined with the participation of some of his tanks at the suppression of the Branch Davidians at Waco, raises some nasty questions.

Click to expand...

Que?! Tanks? from the army? I think you're wrong here, Matt. The US Army is, as far as I know being a Dane and all, is not allowed to operate on US soil by the Comstitution or something. Only military units would have been Guards or some other federal bereau ala ATFB(?) or maybe the Feds - tha ahve some kind of APC's!

But, yes, I'm not all that comfortable with Clakrs ability to keep it togethet none the less. Thank good for Jackson (Witch of course is his name, yes) and the Brits!

Regards and all!

- Mr. Bluenote.

Honeste vivere, alterum non ladere, suum cuique tribuere!

We irishmen are not known to be too fond of the British Army, but Lt. General Sir Mike jackson was spot on when he told clark where to go. What he said was widely reported here (we have the same TV stations as the Brits) and the fact that Prime Minister Blair supported his subordination surely says something about the stupidity of General Clark's orders.

Forgot to say something.

Mr bluenote: US law, not the constitution forbids the use of the military in civilian police actions (possibly the posse commitatus act). The law doesn't stop civilian agencies from using equipement borrowed from the military however. In Waco the FBI/ATF (unsure which) used light tanks borrowed from the US Army.

While we're on the point is this law why the US Coast Guard is used as other countries use their navy? As the military can't take part in police actions the US Navy wouldn't be allowed to operate in drugs operations within US waters and so is this why the US Coast Guard is effectively a military force outwith the Defence Department? Can't think of any other country that has a militarised coast guard.

"I think you're wrong here, Matt. The US Army is, as far as I know being a Dane and all, is not allowed to operate on US soil by the Comstitution or something"

The Posse Comitatus Act forbids use of the military in law enforcement matters. One point critics of the Waco situation made is that it was possible the Act was violated (in addition to the tanks, I've heard stuff about Delta Force guys being pushed by the military to testify in a certain way about their involvement in Waco).

"In Waco the FBI/ATF (unsure which) used light tanks borrowed from the US Army"

If the FBI or ATF borrows these tanks, who's driving them? Driving a tank requires training, something I doubt most FBI or ATF agents have.

Matt Quinn said:

I've heard stuff about Delta Force guys being pushed by the military to testify in a certain way about their involvement in Waco.

If the FBI or ATF borrows these tanks, who's driving them? Driving a tank requires training, something I doubt most FBI or ATF agents have.

Click to expand...

Delta Force personel were being consulted in regards to the effect of gasses on the Davidians, especialley their children. And it was Bradleys IFV, which perhaps could be called a light tank nowadays! The Bradleys were use as delivey vehicles of the CS gas. They apparently drow right up to the Davidian building complex and pumped the gas in! And they were driven by FBI cagents. Did a websearch and found tons of wierd material, but a few usefull hits too!

Regards and all!

- Bluenote.

Honeste vivere, alterum non ladere, suum cuique tribuere!