alternatehistory.com

In a discussion about the American "tea parties" with Hendryk, he said there is a difference between the US intervention in Kosovo (a 78-day bombing campaign) and the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

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

The only ideas I've got are as follows:

Ground Invasion-The US has a massive technological edge over the Yugoslav army, but the majority of the force survived the bombing campaign through the use of decoys and other means (which was not expected), plus the terrain is less friendly to the American way of war than the plains of Mesopotamia (it's hilly and forested).

I remember there being a great concern about the danger of MANPADS to American helicopters if they were deployed, for example. Plus the terrain makes it so the massive range advantage of the M1 tank cannot be used.

A ground invasion might also lack the support of NATO allies. Greece, for example, almost refused to approve the entire aerial campaign in the first place.

This would mean more American casualties in the initial fight, although the US would still win.

Invasion of Yugoslavia Itself-If the war turns into an entire or partial occupation of Serbia proper, there'd be a much greater likelihood of guerrilladom than the occupation of Kosovo. The Serb population in Kosovo, which would be most likely to support the guerrillas, is rather small (10% of the population) and would be dependenton the US for protection against Albanian reprisals.

(Barring a total screwup that turns the Albanians against the United States.)

In Yugoslavia proper, the Serbs would be the majority and they do have the whole Partisan thing from WWII, even though the country is rather different now than then.

So how bad can we plausibly make this?
Top