AHC: 1990s Bosnia war lasts as long as post 2003 Iraqi sectarian strife

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
So that's the challenge, keep the war going [or in a stop-start pattern] for 13 or more years.

Lesser challenge: Keep the Bosnia war [lasted 92-95 in OTL] going as long as the Syrian Civil War. [5 years & 8 months]

Alternate challenges:

Make post-2003 Iraqi sectarian strife end its violent phase or the Syrian civil war end its violent phase in under 4 years.
 
So that's the challenge, keep the war going [or in a stop-start pattern] for 13 or more years.

Lesser challenge: Keep the Bosnia war [lasted 92-95 in OTL] going as long as the Syrian Civil War. [5 years & 8 months]

Alternate challenges:

Make post-2003 Iraqi sectarian strife end its violent phase or the Syrian civil war end its violent phase in under 4 years.
you do know that would mean there is no more Bosnia right? Also it did last from 1990-95. There is not that many Muslim Bosnians even to this day. Also you increase the chances of a wider war dragging in other Balkan countries and eventually Russia and Turkey.
 
More American involvement?

That seems to have been the secret sauce with the Middle East.

Even better, get Saudi Arabia and Israel involved. I think Israel is a stretch, but you could for example have the Saudis pump lots of money into the Bosnian Muslim faction in exchange for their adopting Wahabbist Islam. That could create lots of chaos.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
you do know that would mean there is no more Bosnia right? Also it did last from 1990-95. There is not that many Muslim Bosnians even to this day. Also you increase the chances of a wider war dragging in other Balkan countries and eventually Russia and Turkey.

I thought the 1990-1991 fighting was in Croatia mainly.

So the Bosnian groups, especially the Muslims, just didn't have the numbers to keep fighting going on that long? To me its striking how much shorter the Bosnian fight was and how total and ultimately enduring the ceasefire was. Although, I don't know if peak monthly fatalities were higher, lower or on par with Iraq or Syria (or Afghanistan).
 
I thought the 1990-1991 fighting was in Croatia mainly.

So the Bosnian groups, especially the Muslims, just didn't have the numbers to keep fighting going on that long? To me its striking how much shorter the Bosnian fight was and how total and ultimately enduring the ceasefire was. Although, I don't know if peak monthly fatalities were higher, lower or on par with Iraq or Syria (or Afghanistan).
Yes even to this day the Bosnians are a small groups, if forced to become nations they would be small statelets. What stopped a total genocide was the West and Croats hating Serb domination and general distrust of the Serbs under Milosivich. Yeah there was a general round of fighting in the Balkans that began in 1990 and ended in 1995, the Croat front moved to Bosnia.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
More American involvement?

That seems to have been the secret sauce with the Middle East.

Well there was no "guns blazing" conquest by American ground troops a la Iraq 2003, but there was a US (and UN & NATO) air campaign, and then an occupation by US and other outside forces. This process was repeated again in Kosovo 1999-2000.

But unlike in Iraq or Afghanistan, nobody saw fit to keep shooting after the occupation started.

Even better, get Saudi Arabia and Israel involved. I think Israel is a stretch, but you could for example have the Saudis pump lots of money into the Bosnian Muslim faction in exchange for their adopting Wahabbist Islam. That could create lots of chaos.

Well the Saudis were involved as funders and Mujhadeen sponsors in both the Bosnia and Kosovo wars. So were the Iranians, and Osama Bin Laden. It didn't make violence unstoppable there though.

The Israelis were not involved, except to voice sympathy for the Serbs and opposition to the Muslims and Croats, based on who worked with the Nazis and and worked against them in WWII. The Israelis for understandable reasons, couldn't really look at Europe except through the prism of who did what in WWII.
 
The only thing i can think of is a greater number of Jihadist's fighting in Bosnia, and they were already there in force. There are a couple of UN reports on mercenaries that show just how many of them there were, and i remember a piece in Time (Don't quote me on this its a half remembered article) about how they were having trouble adapting to the more secular Bosnian practice of Islam. Perhaps after the war ends the Jihadist fighters launch a new round of violence against the native Bosnian population because they feel slighted, or because of a disagreement between the secular government and their sponsors? It's an idea
 
The only thing i can think of is a greater number of Jihadist's fighting in Bosnia, and they were already there in force. There are a couple of UN reports on mercenaries that show just how many of them there were, and i remember a piece in Time (Don't quote me on this its a half remembered article) about how they were having trouble adapting to the more secular Bosnian practice of Islam. Perhaps after the war ends the Jihadist fighters launch a new round of violence against the native Bosnian population because they feel slighted, or because of a disagreement between the secular government and their sponsors? It's an idea

The problem with this is that the jihadist fighters don't seem to have been particularly effective. In fact, the Bosnian forces started to turn away mujahideen fighters, asking instead for financial support and weapons from the likes of Saudi Arabia, rather than fighters. Apparently the Arab fighters would do stupid shit like giving away their positions and attacking against positions where they had no hope. It ended up getting a lot of Bosnian troops killed.
 
The problem with this is that the jihadist fighters don't seem to have been particularly effective. In fact, the Bosnian forces started to turn away mujahideen fighters, asking instead for financial support and weapons from the likes of Saudi Arabia, rather than fighters. Apparently the Arab fighters would do stupid shit like giving away their positions and attacking against positions where they had no hope. It ended up getting a lot of Bosnian troops killed.

*Shrugs* honestly, this is going from some research i did years ago on mercenaries. I only remembered it because the UN classified all of the mujahideen who went to Bosnia as mercenaries, and then i read that article i was talking about. There were something like eighty separate 'mercenary companies' listed in the UN report on mercenary activities in the former Yugoslavia. None of the United States contractors or trainers who were active in Croatia at the same time, but plenty of Arabic named mercenary companies. That they were ineffective... does not surprise me in the least.
*Edited to add a period i forgot
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How come the Balkan nationalities were able to make themselves stop fighting while the Syrians, Libyans, Iraqis and Afghans can't?

Is it just that Balkan people have a greater sense of self-preservation and leaders know if they keep ordering suicidal or futile shit that they'll lose their following, but that in those other countries things are so factional and tribal that people just have the stark choice of throwing themselves at the enemy tribe or being killed by their own tribal peers and leaders?
 
How come the Balkan nationalities were able to make themselves stop fighting while the Syrians, Libyans, Iraqis and Afghans can't?

Is it just that Balkan people have a greater sense of self-preservation and leaders know if they keep ordering suicidal or futile shit that they'll lose their following, but that in those other countries things are so factional and tribal that people just have the stark choice of throwing themselves at the enemy tribe or being killed by their own tribal peers and leaders?

I think a big part of this is that the Balkan peoples had relatively centralised and clear decision-making mechanisms, whilst when strong Middle Eastern dictatorships are broken down, there isn't really anything to hold the Middle Eastern countries together. You get a lot of fighting because you have so many factions fighting in civil conflicts in the Middle East. It's hard enough creating a piece agreement between two or three factions. When you have dozens, as is the case in Syria, Iraq and Libya, it's nigh-impossible. Then you get all the meddling from other Middle Eastern countries that have their own horse in the race, perpetuating conflict and making it more difficult for emergent would-be governments to consolidate power.
 
The Israelis were not involved, except to voice sympathy for the Serbs and opposition to the Muslims and Croats, based on who worked with the Nazis and and worked against them in WWII. The Israelis for understandable reasons, couldn't really look at Europe except through the prism of who did what in WWII.
Not strictly true. I believe Netanyahu openly and publicly sided with the Kosovo Albanians. It was his hard-right opposition (largely in the political fringes of Israel) that supported the Serbs.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Not strictly true. I believe Netanyahu openly and publicly sided with the Kosovo Albanians. It was his hard-right opposition (largely in the political fringes of Israel) that supported the Serbs.

I stand corrected, I can modify my statement.

In the Bosnia War (vice the Kosovo war) I don't recall Israeli officials taking a specific position, just that the only Israeli commentators or journalists I ever read comments from viewed it entirely through a WWII, and therefore pro-Serb, point of view.

I didn't know about that Netanyahu Kosovo thing. Though I think Netanyahu was still an opposition leader at the time and Ehud Barak was still PM.
 
Top