4 ms·

How can it be called a failure? It achieved it's goal: Serbs were on the brink of defeating Albanians and totally cleansing Kosovo before it started, and ended

How can it be called a failure? It achieved it's goal: Serbs were on the brink of defeating Albanians and totally cleansing Kosovo before it started, and ended with Yugoslav defeat and Kosovar independence (and somewhat indirectly, Yugoslavia's final dissolution a year later). Without Americans ever needing to put any boots on the ground, only by air power. Winning a war isn't about killing your enemies... It's about achieving your goals. You can't deny they were fully achieved, solely with air power. To me it sounds like anything but a defeat.

EthanHeilman 7y ago
I agree. It is often psychologically more appealing to win battles rather than achieve long term goals. For instance someone wants to get to work faster, but instead they get in a fist fight with the driver in the car ahead of them because the driver was driving too slow. Clausewitz hit the nail on the head when he said, "war is the continuation of policy by additional means". A rational strategy uses battles to achieve policy goals. Losing a battle by minimizing your own losses to win a war is rational with that context. - In German "Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln" Politik with all its varied meaning: often translated into english as politics or policy or political.
- anovikov 7y ago
  But in this case, they actually did won the battle. Yes Serbs preserved the vast majority of their military equipment, except planes. But only by hiding i.e. not using them in battle. Losing a war as a result because they weren't much better equipped this way than the Albanians, and the field was leveled. If they tried to use the equipment to the fullest, they'd just lose it, as Saddam tried in 1991, and result would have been pretty much the same. In a way, it even benefitted Americans because it couldn't be told that they won the war by massacring Serbs (hardly 500 of Serbian military plus about same number of civilians were killed - if they tried to properly operate their military equipment it would be destroyed along with crews and mean a lot higher casualties).
  - levosmetalo 7y ago
    Killing 500 civilians would be considered a war crime if anyone else except US military does it.
    - axguscbklp 7y ago
      NATO also deliberately targeted Serbia's power grid and deliberately targeted a radio/TV station during the war. Both of those things would cause uproar in the US media if an opponent of US geopolitical interests did them.
      - EthanHeilman 7y ago
        >NATO also deliberately targeted Serbia's power grid and deliberately targeted a radio/TV station during the war. Targeting a state owned radio and TV station is well with in the laws of war assuming of course the the radio/TV station is actively aiding the war effort. In this specific case NATO targeted this radio/TV building because it acted as an important command and control node to transmit orders to Serbian military forces. You can read more about it in the U.N.'s report on the investigation of possible NATO warcrimes in the Kosovo war: 'Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia' This report also claims with regard to targeting of power facilies "74. Of the electrical power transformer stations targeted, one transformer station supplied power to the air defence co-ordination network while the other supplied power to the northern-sector operations centre. Both these facilities were key control elements in the FRY integrated air-defence system." >Both of those things would cause uproar in the US media if an opponent of US geopolitical interests did them. Russia and the Syrian targeted hospitals regularly for years and while it get coverage people in the US didn't care much able it. Hospitals are the most protected category of civilian infrastructure according to the laws of armed conflict and Russia bombed them so often there is a wikipedia article about it[1]. [0]: https://www.icty.org/sid/10052#IVB4 https://www.icty.org/sid/10052#IVB4 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Syrian_hospital_bombing_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Syrian_hospita...
Marazan 7y ago
What? Of course America/NATO put boots on the ground. That's the whole point. NATO ground forces going into Kosovo stopped the Ethnic cleansing. The air campaign did nothing. Boots on the ground saved lives.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fit2rule 7y ago
  Russian ground forces stopped the ethnic cleansing. NATO ground forces showing up, ended the conflict.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

EthanHeilman 7y ago

I agree. It is often psychologically more appealing to win battles rather than achieve long term goals. For instance someone wants to get to work faster, but instead they get in a fist fight with the driver in the car ahead of them because the driver was driving too slow. Clausewitz hit the nail on the head when he said, "war is the continuation of policy by additional means". A rational strategy uses battles to achieve policy goals. Losing a battle by minimizing your own losses to win a war is rational with that context. - In German "Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln" Politik with all its varied meaning: often translated into english as politics or policy or political.

anovikov 7y ago
But in this case, they actually did won the battle. Yes Serbs preserved the vast majority of their military equipment, except planes. But only by hiding i.e. not using them in battle. Losing a war as a result because they weren't much better equipped this way than the Albanians, and the field was leveled. If they tried to use the equipment to the fullest, they'd just lose it, as Saddam tried in 1991, and result would have been pretty much the same. In a way, it even benefitted Americans because it couldn't be told that they won the war by massacring Serbs (hardly 500 of Serbian military plus about same number of civilians were killed - if they tried to properly operate their military equipment it would be destroyed along with crews and mean a lot higher casualties).
- levosmetalo 7y ago
  Killing 500 civilians would be considered a war crime if anyone else except US military does it.
  - axguscbklp 7y ago
    NATO also deliberately targeted Serbia's power grid and deliberately targeted a radio/TV station during the war. Both of those things would cause uproar in the US media if an opponent of US geopolitical interests did them.
    - EthanHeilman 7y ago
      >NATO also deliberately targeted Serbia's power grid and deliberately targeted a radio/TV station during the war. Targeting a state owned radio and TV station is well with in the laws of war assuming of course the the radio/TV station is actively aiding the war effort. In this specific case NATO targeted this radio/TV building because it acted as an important command and control node to transmit orders to Serbian military forces. You can read more about it in the U.N.'s report on the investigation of possible NATO warcrimes in the Kosovo war: 'Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia' This report also claims with regard to targeting of power facilies "74. Of the electrical power transformer stations targeted, one transformer station supplied power to the air defence co-ordination network while the other supplied power to the northern-sector operations centre. Both these facilities were key control elements in the FRY integrated air-defence system." >Both of those things would cause uproar in the US media if an opponent of US geopolitical interests did them. Russia and the Syrian targeted hospitals regularly for years and while it get coverage people in the US didn't care much able it. Hospitals are the most protected category of civilian infrastructure according to the laws of armed conflict and Russia bombed them so often there is a wikipedia article about it[1]. [0]: https://www.icty.org/sid/10052#IVB4 https://www.icty.org/sid/10052#IVB4 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Syrian_hospital_bombing_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Syrian_hospita...

Marazan 7y ago

What? Of course America/NATO put boots on the ground. That's the whole point. NATO ground forces going into Kosovo stopped the Ethnic cleansing. The air campaign did nothing. Boots on the ground saved lives.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fit2rule 7y ago
Russian ground forces stopped the ethnic cleansing. NATO ground forces showing up, ended the conflict.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]