Was NATO's war against Serbia an example of a successfully prosecuted aggressive war by modern, high-tech, highly connected democracies?
If so, what made that war different from the current conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon? Is the difference a primarily cultural one (among the populations being attacked); for example, would Serb forces not have been willing to fight a defensive guerilla war in their own country which would very likely reduce it to rubble? Or are there more significant material or political differences that made it impossible for Serbia to continue fighting while Iraqis and Hezbollah (at least for now) refuse to give up; for example, the relative lack of support for the U.S./Israel in the latter wars compared with the relatively large number of major countries aligned against Serbia?
I imagine one significant difference is the actual demographic make-up of the territory being defended from aggression. In Kosovo, which Serbs felt deeply to be an integral part of the Serbian "homeland", only 10% of the population were actually while 80% were Albanians. On the other hand, there is no doubt that Lebanon is populated predominantly by Lebanese and Iraq by Iraqis.
Perhaps if NATO had wanted to prosecute the war until Milosevic were captured, for example, the Serbs would have not given up, turning to guerilla warfare and forcing NATO to cause large spikes in casualty rates using precision air support. Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire
First, the war plan was an air war increased in three steps in hope of the regime crumbling: first bombs on Serbian forces in Kosovo, then in all of Yugoslavia, then bombs to wreck the economic background (bombing bridges, refineries, administration buildings far away from Kosovo -- being closest, the senseless destruction of the Danube bridges in Novi Sad are most in my memory). But this plan didn't work out: stage 3 was reached in the first weeks, but still nothing happened, and NATO had no better idea than continue bombing, scrambling to find targets. Finally the regime moved when there was a threat of invasion by ground forces (which I then thought they should have done on day one).
Second, what NATO got from Milošević in the end was not more than what he offered himself in Rambouillet, before the KLA representatives made talks fail. The hoped-for crumbling of the regime as citizens blamed Milo for the destruction of their country didn't happen, in fact it was the opposition that was temporalily weakened, and permanently tainted: while the following in no small part European-shouldered effort to unite and prop up the opposition did result in Milo's overthrow a year later, NATO's bombardement made Yugoslavia more of an economic ruin and made nationalists' job of blame games much easier, resulting in today's mess.
Third, instead of preventing or stopping a genocide, the Serb regular and irregular forces turned a mostly anti-insurgency fight into violent ethnic cleansing after the bombs began to fall -- and KLA and ex-KLA forces began their own ethnic cleansing and murder campaign after the Serbian forces left.
Fourth, the NATO->UN->EU control of Kosovo is also a mess, they proved incapable of damming the ethnic cleansing and the build of organised crime (with Kosovan mafias later controlling a good chunk of European drugs and human smuggling and the modern slave trade called woman trafficking), as they too often resorted to force defence rather than intervene. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The answer about Serbian case is a little bit more complicated. It would take dissertation to just seriously start to understand it.
Well, it falls short of a dissertation, but I still think it might serve as a primer:
A brief history of Kosovo: part I
A brief history of Kosovo: part II The world's northernmost desert wind.
On this point:
NATO war with Serbia is definitely not an example to compare with these wars of Middle East.
from what I read in your response, the difference you see comes down to the demographic make-up of the territory being defended:
As for Kosovo as much as we feel attached fact is that we have lost most of the territories there by simple fact as birth rate is. So sooner or later we'll have to say goodbye to at least half of it because it's simply not praiseworthy to maintain. Too costly...
since you also pointedly write that
if NATO solders let ground forces enter Serbia the guerilla war would be present till this very day.
In other words, Colman's thesis -- when limited to guerilla warfare -- still holds. The Kosovo War was not a guerilla war. But would have become one, had NATO invaded Serbia. In which case, according to Colman's thesis, air power would not have been enough to defeat Serbia, and moreover would have caused far more civilian casualties then it did. At least on this point, NATO seems to have been smart.
Out of curiosity, do you agree with DoDo's point above:
what NATO got from Miloševi? in the end was not more than what he offered himself in Rambouillet, before the KLA representatives made talks fail.
Quote: What NATO got from Milosevic? In the end was not more than what he offered himself in Rambouillet, before the KLA representatives made talks fail. --- I don't know if anybody knows exactly what NATO got from Milosevic or Milosevic from NATO...really. I remember that people were talking about NATO forces walking freely in and through entire Serbia like occupying forces (this is a terrible thought for us) was one of the thingies predicted in Rambouillet. I don't see them in Serbia to this day all though there are rumors now of letting them use some airports etc. There is simply not transparency there at the moment. I only can say that in order to have person who signs on Serbian side for Kosovo (or even part of Kosovo) independence, live more then 24 hours after that, Serbs need to get other Serbian lands (where Serbs live) like in Bosnia etc. become part of Serbia. It can only bee that way or there is no way anything signed will hold for the future. As we say "Paper can endure anything"... but reality...
