And he stayed a European ally all during the 1990s. Yet, because of the deeply idiotic US President of the 2000s, the call to stop Saddam was largely opposed by the global human rights community

I don't know about the US, but the European left was pretty vociferous in its condemnation of Saddam and was then hugely nonplussed by the US invasion which they knew was for all the wrong reasons but which offered the prospect of doing what they couldn't do - actually get rid of him.

South African whites, Apartheid era, were often hugely angry at the "western" condemnation of Apartheid when the deaths and suffering paled in comparison to an Idi Amin.  I argued at the time that the reason for this apparent double standard was that South African whites claimed to be European, Christian, civilised, democrats, and Europeans could not admit their claim to relative legitimately without admitting that racism was ok in Europe as well.

If this analysis is even partially correct, then Milosevic was more harshly judged because he too acted in the name of a European, white Christian, democratic country.  There are plenty of ethnic tensions in and around Europe which could be stirred up if his claim was to be allowed to stand.  Very few (in my neck of the woods anyway) could name the leaders of Croatia, Bosnia, or Kosovo by comparison.

You need a "face of evil" if you want to market an intervention, and Milosevic had the misfortune to become it.

notes from no w here