alternatehistory.com

In 1999, in the midst of the NATO bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a result of that nation’s refusal to end it’s violent actions against Kosovar Albanians and accept the deployment of a multinational peacekeeping force to ensure that end, there was much speculation and debate over a potential ground invasion should the Serbs persist. While some NATO nations were receptive, France and Germany were opposed to such ideas, and US President Clinton publicly ruled out the use of American ground troops in Serbia (though he apparently changed his mind, as the US military was apparently preparing to take part in a ground invasion of Kosovo before Milosevic ultimately caved). In the end, Belgrade chose to back down, withdraw it’s troops from Kosovo, and allow a UN-led peacekeeping force to be deployed. According to some accounts, this decision was heavily influenced by NATO preparations for invasion.

As stated above, before Milosevic gave in to NATO’s demands the alliance was preparing to launch a ground intervention to expel Serbian forces from Kosovo. This Guardian article from July 1999 alleges to contain details from the actual NATO plans for a ground invasion of Kosovo, with a 170,000-strong, British-led force attacking in early September.

What if the invasion had occurred? Let’s say that for whatever reason, Milosevic continues to refuse NATO demands, and as a result NATO crosses into Kosovo. What would the casualties be? This 1999 analysis by the Heritage Foundation which considered six potential scenarios for a NATO intervention in Serbia, (ranging from the full-on invasion and occupation of the FRY to the similar to OTL negotiated deployment of peacekeepers) predicted that a NATO invasion to secure Kosovo would take four to six weeks and result in 500 - 2000 US casualties (it does not take into account foreign troops and assumes a 50K-70K strong force, while actual NATO planning called for 170K, as stated above).

Is there any chance that a NATO-FRY ground war in Kosovo could escalate into a full-on invasion of Serbia proper? The aforementioned Heritage Foundation analysis predicted that 500,000 troops would be needed to invade and occupy the whole of Serbia, while roughly 250,000 would be needed if NATO chose to only occupy Belgrade. It predicted that in either scenario US casualties could reach the tens of thousands. It may be worth mentioning that at the time, NATO believed there was a significant threat that Serbia could use chemical weapons against their troops, though in recent years it appears that threat was greatly overstated.

What effects would this conflict have on European stability? While I doubt Russia would seriously be willing to go to war over Serbia, they will certainly not be happy. The OTL bombings are often cited as a reason the post-Cold War relationship between NATO and Russia went to pot, and there is some evidence Russian defense officials worried that NATO might launch a similar “humanitarian intervention” in Chechnya. Perhaps we see a Russian military modernization and buildup sooner, and it is possible that they could aid the Serbians through intelligence and arms sales.

What effects might this have on US domestic politics? The lines for the 2000 election were already being drawn, and a large-scale conflict in Europe with US troops directly committed would definitely have some effects on the election. While there might be some support for a humanitarian intervention, a war that could cause thousands of American casualties might cause voters to go for whichever candidate would end the war. Ironically, it seems like this might favor Bush, who supported the withdrawal of US troops from the Balkans in October 2000, while Gore supported continuing American participation in NATO peacekeeping operations.

Any thoughts?
Top