Kosovo Goes As Badly as Iraq

Angel Heart

Banned
So how could we make it so the Kosovo intervention becomes as problematic as Iraq, with a similar death toll?

Since Serbs are a bit different from Abrabs, there won't be for example any suicide bombings and you can just forget about a "holy war against the NATO infedels" since there won't be an orthodox/slavic counterpart of the Al Qaida supporting the Serbs.
You are also overestimating the popularity of Milosevic. He only enjoyed great public support during conflicts and wars. And there is a high possibility of Milosevic being ousted by his own people or some other factions if the shit hits the fan (economy in ruins, Serbia at the brink of total annihilation and so on)...at least it is more plausible then the "shooting back at Albania since 05:45"-scenario since Belgrade's goal was to keep what they considered rightfully theirs so invading Albania or Macedonia, for what mystical reasons ever, wasn't on the agenda.
I admit, Serbian nationalism can be...creative...but shelling Bulgaria...why not? Declaring war on Greece and Russia seems also plausible for Serbia doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Short version: There MAY be some low scale insurgency in Serbia proper at the very beginning after the war but as long as there is enough to eat and a propper housings, Serbia won't resemble Iraq in any way. You may not believe it but Serbs have much in common with Europeans and especially North Americans...
 
So very true, but again, even admitting that Clinton and his Euro allies had deemed the regime change necessary, almost surely they would have managed the administration of occupied Serbia rather more competently than the neo-con loonies.

Indeed, one wonders what would have happened in Iraq if the ratio of troops to people occupied had been the same in Kosovo, for starters (Initial KFOR strength was around 50 000 for 2 000 000. For Iraq the same ratio would require roughly 500 000 troops. Expensive? Sure, but surely no more expensive than the disaster which struck in OTL. Achievable? Definitely.
 
Indeed, one wonders what would have happened in Iraq if the ratio of troops to people occupied had been the same in Kosovo, for starters (Initial KFOR strength was around 50 000 for 2 000 000. For Iraq the same ratio would require roughly 500 000 troops. Expensive? Sure, but surely no more expensive than the disaster which struck in OTL. Achievable? Definitely.


Well 500000 troops is plausible for the invasion, but for the occupation? I dunno about that. There would need to be considerably more political will behind the war for you to get the "coalition of the willing" to agree to support that many troops to serve in Iraq for such an extended period of time. Even if the occupation goes well you're still looking at needing an occupation force for something like a year at least.
 
Well 500000 troops is plausible for the invasion, but for the occupation? I dunno about that. There would need to be considerably more political will behind the war for you to get the "coalition of the willing" to agree to support that many troops to serve in Iraq for such an extended period of time. Even if the occupation goes well you're still looking at needing an occupation force for something like a year at least.

Some 500 000 troops could have been found out even if the US conducted the invasion as diplomatically stupidly as in OTL. In 2003 the US had 10 active Army and 3 active USMC divisions, out of which just 4 were used for the invasion. Considering the international situation in 2003 it might have been perfectly feasible to use more active troops and we haven't considered the mighty US reserve formations yet. Ten to fifteen US division equivalents could have been used for, say, two years, without impact on US ability to react to international events. The deployment would have been back-breaking for the troops but surely no more than the on-off war lasting for six and a half years...
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
Yeah, right, French refusal to aid KLA ethnic cleansers by providing them cover of security the way Germans and Americans did (that's why their occupation zones are Serbfrei now) is sure sign of French being pro-Serbian. If you don't endorse crimes against Serbians, you're pro-Serbian :(

There's no excuse to be posting flamebait here.
 
There's no excuse to be posting flamebait here.
Am I allowed to ask why wasn't initial accusation of French being pro-Serbian considered a flamebait and stating the fact that US and German-occupied areas of Kosovo saw it's non-Albanian population cleansed out is a flamebait? Thank You in advance.
 
Top