Yugoslavia Conflict in Yugoslavia 1999

[Christian Zulus]

Conflict in Yugoslavia 1999

Gentlemen,

I just found that comprehensive website about the 1999-conflict in Yugoslavia in the internet:

http://www.aeronautics.ru/yugoslavia/index.htm

It's a Russian website, but the complete content is in English .

The listed "official" NATO-losses had been already rather "drastic", but the NATO aircraft accidents, documented by sources from Greece (NATO-country!), Russia, Yugoslavia, etc., etc. had been rather "horrible".

Here is a link to about a GRU (Russian military secret service) - report dealing with NATO-losses during "Allied Force": http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/natolosses-review01.htm

That's a table & map of NATO-KIAs & captured pilots compilied by Ivan Lazarevic: http://members.tripod.com/IvanLucky/table.htm .

Well, the question remains: Why had all the captured pilots never been presented via RTS-TV or other medias in Yugoslavia to the public, as they did with the 3 captured GIs .... Had there been a secret deal among NATO & the Republic of Yugoslavia like: Targets in advance against not-publishing (all) NATO-losses ?

I think, that the main shortcoming of the NATO-commanders had been, that they didn't took the (almost) perfect air-defense-system of Yugoslavia into account (and the courage of the YU-fighter-pilots).

Best regards

Christian

BTW: 3 more threads at GMIC-YU, dealing with the 1999-conflict NATO vs. Republic of Yugoslavia:

- http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=13964 (shot down F-117 A)

- http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=16821 (Airmuseum Belgrade)

- http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=16728 (Military Museum Belgrade)

Edited July 4, 2007 by Christian Zulus

[Nick]

Seems to be more speculation and conjecture than hard facts on the websites, but I leave it for others to make their minds up.

[Christian Zulus]

Seems to be more speculation and conjecture than hard facts on the websites, but I leave it for others to make their minds up.

Dear Nick,

that's also what I think and I already pointed that out in my posting:

"Well, the question remains: Why had all the captured pilots never been presented via RTS-TV or other medias in Yugoslavia to the public, as they did with the 3 captured GIs .... "

Ivan Lazarevic lists in his table http://members.tripod.com/IvanLucky/table.htm 218 KIAs and 24 captured pilots .

There is hard evidence, that the NATO-losses had been higher, than the "official" reports by the NATO tell, but I think, that these figures of the extremly large numbers of KIAs & captured pilots are more or less "fantasy".

The General Staff of Yugoslavia presented after operation "Allied Force" statistics of 128 shot down aircrafts and 14 shot down helicopters, but mentioned only, that there had been also a "considerable numbers of KIAs".

ISSA in Washington D.C. http://www.strategicstudies.org/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International...ies_Association published rather similar figures after the war. Well, ISSA isn't run by the Russian secret service, but it is - as an NGO - a respected US-institution.

Another question arises: What is a "shot down" aircraft? Can an aircraft be called "shot down", when the skilfull pilot could manage to reach a airfield outside of Yugoslavia, but the plane was totally damaged and had to be wrecked afterwards? At least such an aircraft was a "total loss".

Well, there had yet not been a lot of research in depth about the 1999-war NATO vs. Yugoslavia, because neither the NATO, nor the government of Serbia is really interested in enhanced publicity about "Allied Force", I guess .

Best regards

Christian

Edited July 5, 2007 by Christian Zulus

[Drugo]

Especially now that Serbia entered the Partnership for Peace... What Christian said is true, there was much more going under the surface, that we don't know yet.

[Chris Boonzaier]

Shouldnt you guys be vetting the rumour that Jim Morrison is alive and living in Paris?

Elvis at Burger King?

[Chris Boonzaier]

Table of killed/captured pilots/soldiers during the aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Oh Brother......

Now here is a question... do you think there is any western country that could loose a helicopter with 25 men... and keep it secret?

That a B52 would be shot down and a govt could keep it secret?

There is no way to keep things like that secret.

[Ulsterman]

Not any more-but it was common in the 1050s.

[Kev in Deva]

Seems like the words "Alternatively" and "most probably" with a few "according to other sources" are used very frequently in these websires, which offers very little proof of all it claims to represent.

How so many aircraft are shot down and still not identified as to what they were is strange as well??

One site claims 218 Air-crew personel killed, funny how all these deaths could be hidden from the families of the aircrew in the various countries they came from??

There is a major element of propaganda in all of the sites featured.

And at the end of the day, what do the sites want to convince us off, that Yugoslavia won the conflict??

Is there any Independent site out there which has studied all the claims??

Kevin in Deva

[Ed_Haynes]

As there is so little on this conflict from any side and even less that seems in any way balanced and reliable, I would hope we'd have space on the analytical table for a range of sources. It would however be nice to see sources that cited their own sources, but that is a widely shared problem and few who choose to be involved in the discussion seem to be able to go beyond shouting/saying, loudly and confidently, that what they Believe to be True is In Fact True. While we may yet be too close in time for any balanced historical view, it would be interesting to see, someday.

[Christian Zulus]

Now here is a question... do you think there is any western country that could loose a helicopter with 25 men... and keep it secret?

That a B52 would be shot down and a govt could keep it secret?

There is no way to keep things like that secret.

Dear Chris,

you listed very strong arguments, but non-NATO-sources state, that in spring/summer 1999 there had been some severe crashes of helicopters and aircrafts of the US-Forces, which happend "officially" in South America, Philipines, etc., but should have happened actually somewhere in the Westbalkans or in the Adriatic Sea.

Well, I can imagine, that the YU-Forces damaged the one or other aircraft/helicopter more, which isn't listed in the "official" NATO-table of the losses during "Allied Force", but such hughe numbers of losses - personal & material - might be hardly believable.

Best regards

Christian

[Christian Zulus]

Is there any Independent site out there which has studied all the claims??

Dear Kevin,

yes, there should be a comprehensive report from Washingtion by ISSA http://www.strategicstudies.org/ , an independent US-organisation, which should state rather similar facts, as the report of the YU General Staff does. I already mentioned that source in my previous posting.

The YU-report never gave any numbers of NATO-KIAs ...

Sorry ...., ISSA doesen't show that special report on their website, they offer no reports about "Allied Force" there . Maybe that material isn't free of charge .

It might be very helpful, if a GMIC-member, who is located in the USA, could contact ISSA-Washington and ask, if we might publish their independent report at GMIC .

Best regards

Christian

[Christian Zulus]

As there is so little on this conflict from any side and even less that seems in any way balanced and reliable, I would hope we'd have space on the analytical table for a range of sources. It would however be nice to see sources that cited their own sources, but that is a widely shared problem and few who choose to be involved in the discussion seem to be able to go beyond shouting/saying, loudly and confidently, that what they Believe to be True is In Fact True. While we may yet be too close in time for any balanced historical view, it would be interesting to see, someday.

Dear Ed,

the question of the number of NATO-losses during "Allied Force" might be a great subject for a masterthesis for one of your students in history .

It seems, that the problem is right now, that no side of the 1999-conflict in Yugoslavia is right now interested in publications about the confrontation NATO vs. YU .

The military conflict in Yugoslavia in 1999 had been completly sensless in the result: Neither had been there a clear and outright "winner" of the confrontation, nor had been the "Kosovo-Problem" solved . O.K., in the Middle East we have now a rather similar situation, which is several times more dramatic ....

Well, I think, the last military campain, which made somehow a "sense" and got a clear result, had been "Falklands 1982".

Best regards

Christian

Best regards

[SasaYU]

And at the end of the day, what do the sites want to convince us off, that Yugoslavia won the conflict??

Is there any Independent site out there which has studied all the claims??

Kevin in Deva

There was no "conflict". There was only bombardment.

[Christian Zulus]

There was no "conflict". There was only bombardment.

Dear Sasa,

Gentlemen,

there had been an "artificial" conflict between NATO & Yugoslavia, which resulted into a completly illegal - according to all international laws ! - bombardment by the NATO and the defense of the YU-people & YU-motherland against the NATO-bombs & -rockets by the VJ.

Neither the NATO, nor Yugoslavia won the war, but there had been two big loosers: The citizens of Yugoslavia and the Russian Federation.

.... and two big winners: The defense industry in the USA and in Great Britain ...

Two years before NATO's hughe campain "Allied Force" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bom...c_of_Yugoslavia started, Hollywood produced a great movie: "Wag the Dog" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog , which gives a lot of insight, how a war in our age is "mad(e)" .

Operation "Allied Force" turned out to become a complete mess and failure - NATO stood before dissolution ! - and the US-Adminstration kicked out General Wesley Clark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark , the SACEUR, who had been responsible for the shortcomings in the planning of the war and the chaotic organisation, which almost resulted in a battle between Russian and British forces at Pristina airport .

Well, Sasa is right: According to international laws, "Helsinki-Treaty", UN-Charta, etc., etc. there had been no conflict at all, but the NATO started to bomb Yugoslavia without any legitimation by the UNO .

Best regards

Christian

[Kev in Deva]

There was no "conflict". There was only bombardment.

Seems the dictionary offers us a better definition than SasaYU simple one, with regards the word conflict, just what was the YU doing to warrent NATO intervention??? (See verb 2. bottom of the post)

Noun 1. conflict: conflict - an open clash between two opposing groups (or individuals); "the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph"--Thomas Paine; "police tried to control the battle between the pro- and anti-abortion mobs"

struggle, battle

class struggle, class war, class warfare - conflict between social or economic classes (especially between the capitalist and proletariat classes)

insurrection, revolt, uprising, rising, rebellion - organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another

counterinsurgency, pacification - actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency

group action - action taken by a group of people

strife - bitter conflict; heated often violent dissension

tug-of-war - any hard struggle between equally matched groups

turf war - a bitter struggle for territory or power or control or rights; "a turf war erupted between street gangs"; "the president's resignation was the result of a turf war with the board of directors"

fight, fighting, combat, scrap - the act of fighting; any contest or struggle; "a fight broke out at the hockey game"; "there was fighting in the streets"; "the unhappy couple got into a terrible scrap"

feud - a bitter quarrel between two parties

warfare, war - an active struggle between competing entities; "a price war"; "a war of wits"; "diplomatic warfare"

2. conflict - opposition between two simultaneous but incompatible feelings; "he was immobilized by conflict and indecision"

ambivalence, ambivalency - mixed feelings or emotions.

3. conflict conflict - a hostile meeting of opposing military forces in the course of a war; "Grant won a decisive victory in the battle of Chickamauga"; "he lost his romantic ideas about war when he got into a real engagement"

battle, engagement, fight

military action, action - a military engagement; "he saw action in Korea"

Armageddon - any catastrophically destructive battle; "they called the first World War an Armageddon"

pitched battle - a fierce battle fought in close combat between troops in predetermined positions at a chosen time and place

naval battle - a pitched battle between naval fleets

armed combat, combat - an engagement fought between two military forces.

war, warfare - the waging of armed conflict against an enemy; "thousands of people were killed in the war"

dogfight - an aerial engagement between fighter planes.

assault - close fighting during the culmination of a military attack.

Battle of Britain - the prolonged bombardment of British cities by the German Luftwaffe during World War II and the aerial combat that accompanied it.

Drogheda - in 1649 the place was captured by Oliver Cromwell, who massacred the Catholic inhabitants.

armed forces, armed services, military, military machine, war machine - the military forces of a nation; "their military is the largest in the region"; "the military machine is the same one we faced in 1991 but now it is weaker".

4. conflict - a state of opposition between persons or ideas or interests; "his conflict of interest made him ineligible for the post"; "a conflict of loyalties."

state - the way something is with respect to its main attributes; "the current state of knowledge"; "his state of health"; "in a weak financial state."

friction, clash - a state of conflict between persons.

clash - a state of conflict between colors; "her dress was a disturbing clash of colors."

cold war - a state of political conflict using means short of armed warfare.

disagreement, dissonance, dissension - a conflict of people's opinions or actions or characters.

5. conflict - an incompatibility of dates or events; "he noticed a conflict in the dates of the two meetings"

incompatibility - the quality of being unable to exist or work in congenial combination.

6. conflict - opposition in a work of drama or fiction between characters or forces (especially an opposition that motivates the development of the plot); "this form of conflict is essential to Mann's writing"

oppositeness, opposition - the relation between opposed entities.

7. conflict conflict - a disagreement or argument about something important; "he had a dispute with his wife"; "there were irreconcilable differences"; "the familiar conflict between Republicans and Democrats"

difference of opinion, dispute, difference.

disagreement - the speech act of disagreeing or arguing or disputing

collision - a conflict of opposed ideas or attitudes or goals; "a collision of interests"

contestation, controversy, disceptation, arguing, argument, contention, disputation, tilt - a contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement; "they were involved in a violent argument"

dustup, quarrel, run-in, wrangle, row, words - an angry dispute; "they had a quarrel"; "they had words."

Verb 1. conflict - be in conflict; "The two proposals conflict!"

counterpoint, contrast - to show differences when compared; be different; "the students contrast considerably in their artistic abilities"

jar, clash, collide - be incompatible; be or come into conflict; "These colors clash."

2. conflict - go against, as of rules and laws; "He ran afould of the law"; "This behavior conflicts with our rules"

contravene, infringe, run afoul.

breach, infract, transgress, violate, go against, offend, break - act in disregard of laws and rules; "offend all laws of humanity"; "violate the basic laws or human civilization"; "break a law."

Kevin in Deva.

[Christian Zulus]

Seems the dictionary offers us a better definition than SasaYU simple one, with regards the word conflict, just what was the YU doing to warrent NATO intervention??? (See verb 2. bottom of the post)

Dear Kevin,

many thanks for that great dictionary .

Well, I think, it is not the job of the victim (YU) to justify an illegal act of aggression (NATO)

The NATO had been in conflict with all international laws & UN-regulations (and also NATO-regulations!), when they started the conflict in Yugoslavia 1999.

Tell me: What has the definition verb 2. bottom of the post to do with Yugoslavia in 1999 ? Yugoslavia hadn't been Nazi-Germany and the Serbs are no "SS-Butchers" .

Best regards

Christian

Edited July 7, 2007 by Christian Zulus

[SasaYU]

Dear Kevin,

Yugoslav army and people were defending their county against the attack.

That is the simple answer.

I was there, I know what was going on. Belive me.

Please read international laws & UN-regulations. Maybe then you will understand.

Also, thank you very much for the dictionary. I have five thank you. But I am always willing to learn something new.

Dear Christian, I agree with you comletely.

Edited July 7, 2007 by SasaYU

[Kev in Deva]

Dear Kevin,

many thanks for that great dictionary .

Well, I think, it is not the job of the victim (YU) to justify an illegal act of aggression (NATO)

The NATO had been in conflict with all international laws & UN-regulations (and also NATO-regulations!), when they started the conflict in Yugoslavia 1999.

Tell me: What has the definition verb 2. bottom of the post to do with Yugoslavia in 1999 ? Yugoslavia hadn't been Nazi-Germany and the Serbs are no "SS-Butchers" .

Best regards

Christian

Hallo Christian

with regards verb 2: it refers to the Milosevic regime and their actions carried out in the region.

For as many people as you have who are claiming that N.A.T.O. and the U.S.A. were the aggressors in the region, you will find as many who will state that Yugoslavia and particularly the Serbians were the main aggressors.

For as many websites you post linking to backing up the claims of N.A.T.O. and U.S.A. aggression, there can be found as many that claim the opposite.

As Ed, rightly states in his post, this conflict is in the too recent past to be discussed rationaly without bringing politics and passion into the discussion.

Suffice to say "SasaYU" post with regards "it was not a conflict but only bombardment" implies that NATO & the US were the only aggressors. When any rational person knows it was not so one-sided as he would have us believe.

Kevin in Deva

[Drugo]

Let's say than that the 1999 bombardment of Serbia was a huge flop, for a few simple reasons:

1) The absolute ignorance about what was going on in Kosovo and its history in western countries: the media have always to show two well recognizable sides, the good guys and the bad guys. This always lead to misunderstandings and prejudice.

From 1997/98 Milosevic had undertaken an ethnical cleaning of the Albanian population of Kosovo (almost the 90% of the population of the region). This is well known and no doubt it happened. Not the right way to solve the problem, that's sure, but from 2000 on, the Serbs of the region are suffering the same treatment by the Albanian population, and if the KFOR would leave the place, it would grow on a bigger scale.

Serbs policemen risk their life everyday, they couldn't and they can't drive through some parts of their country because they would get shot without any different reason than being Serbs.

Kosovo is a Serbian region from the XI century, the biggest part of its history was written there. Its official name is Kosovo and Metohija, but Metohija nowadays is not politically correct. From the Greek met?chio, it means "property of a monastery". In Kosovo there were, and there are still those who survived, some of the most beautiful, rich and old orthodox Christian churches, built more than 800 years ago, and today on the UNESCO heritage list.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/724

http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/268

Kosovo represents the 15% of the Serbian national territory. Could it be possible to solve this problem with the indipendence of the region? Imagine if the Mexicans start settling in Texas, and when they reach the 80% of local population, they start to build their own schools, hospitals, a parallel underground social system. They stop paying taxes and giving credit to the authorities. Finally, they ask for indipendence. Would you agree with it?

It's easier to judge than to ask ourselves uncomfortable questions...

2) The humanitarian crisis that spread because of the bombings.

Because of the conflict (if you prefear this term), the ethnical cleaning increased 100 times, while the civilian population had not only to escape from Serbian army, but also from NATO bombs. Europe was prepeared to punish Serbia, but didn't want a mass of people of tens of thousands of refugees to cross their borders. Where to put them?

3) Milosevic's position in Serbia was already getting weak, and his popularity had notably decreased in the last years of the '90s. But for those who conducted for years their underground struggle against him, the western bombs meant only one thing: western countries abandoned them. They didn't understand. They didn't help. Now they bomb their cities, not only military objectives, but factories, bridges, roads, TV stations, they are killing hundreds of innocent people (how to forget the bombed train on 13th April, while it was crossing a bridge in Southern Serbia?). Aren't these war crimes?

Nationalism spread all other the country again, due to a "humanitarian war" that was more seen as an injustice by who had to live day and night under the constant fear of death. The anger was the right weapon Milosevic was looking for to keep his tragical play on stage a little more.

I remember a sentence, written on the wall of a civilian defence bunker in Belgrade at the time: Bringing peace with bombs is like preserving the virginity of a girl f****** her. Sad, but true.

Edited July 8, 2007 by Drugo

[Christian Zulus]

with regards verb 2: it refers to the Milosevic regime and their actions carried out in the region.

Dear Kevin,

specially that point seems to have faded out a bit via historical reasearch:

Racak-massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racak , the "trigger" for the bombardment, turned out to be a 100 % fake, organized by the Albanian KLA-brigades. When you study international reports - specially from the German foreign office - about the situation in Kosovo in spring 1999, then you will find no striking incidents regarding human rights and so on.

Milosevic had been a bad ruler of YU and for the YU-citizens, no doubt about that.

Well, you and Ed are right: The historical research actually didn't start at a large & international scale.

But one point is 100 % clear: NATO violated several international laws and regulations - and also some NATO-countries (i.e.: Germany) violated their own constitution.

Maybe in 50 years the history of the 4 YU-Wars of the 1990s might be as well researched, as the history of WW II.

Best regards

Christian

Edited July 8, 2007 by Christian Zulus

[Chris Boonzaier]

"you listed very strong arguments, but non-NATO-sources state, that in spring/summer 1999 there had been some severe crashes of helicopters and aircrafts of the US-Forces, which happend "officially" in South America, Philipines, etc., but should have happened actually somewhere in the Westbalkans or in the Adriatic Sea."

Do you REALLY think this is realistic?

25 men die, their families know they and their unit are in the Balkans... so do hundreds of comrades etc. etc...

NOTHING is secret in the days of bloggers and internet...

In this day and age, something like this cannot be kept secret. You are assuming that the hundreds of people who would know about it would never get drunk and talk in a bar, or brag to a girlfriend etc. etc.

I think that is really on the Elvis at Burgerking level ;-)

[Christian Zulus]

Do you REALLY think this is realistic?

Dear Chris,

yes, up to a certain degree that might be realistic - in some cases.

The families of US-soldiers, who serve in "certain" units, never know, where their father or husband is really doing his duty. Ask a wife of a "Green Beret"-NCO, if she always knows, where her husband is located .

"Athinaiki" is a leading daily newspaper in Athens, Greece - a NATO-member! That paper reported several incidents, where dead or wounded NATO-soldiers and pilots where brought to Macedonia and Greece:

http://www.serbia-info.com/news/1999-04/04/10496.html

http://www.serbia-info.com/news/1999-04/05/10542.html

The renowed Austrian historian Dr. Hannes Hofbauer published in 2001 a book "BALKANKRIEG - Zehn Jahre Zerst?rung Jugoslawiens", where he list on p. 199 all the strange accidents & crashes at far away places: Israel, Japan, Puerto Rico, Kentucky and Arizona. According to US-Forces-statistics, there happend a large number of accidents - far above average - in spring/summer 1999:

http://www.mediashop.at/023osteu/203hhbalkan.htm

http://www.amazon.de/Balkankrieg-Zehn-Jahr...s/dp/3853711790

Well, I don't believe in 218 KIAs, but I also don't believe in zero-casualities. The historical truth will be somewhere between 0 and 218, I assume.

Best regards

Christian

[hunyadi]

A few things about the US military as I wont speak for NATO - most family members of serivcemen and women dont know where their family member is serving in a war zone - general location, but never specifics. Its a matter of security that we have learned over the years with the dynamic shift of warfare.

As for crashes in other parts of the world - accidents happen all the time. Most never get reported beyond local events and when it does make the public news, its because someone in the public reported it. But the other thing to consider is that when in times of conflict, training goes up. Pilots and crews want to do what they are trained for and if there is a chance that they are going to a 'conflict zone' then you step up the training. Pilots and crews from all over the world know they may be called in. Its not like we just have European pool of pilots and when that pool runs out the war ends.

Using the assumption that the extra crashes or 'accidents' in other regions is not a good guage. The data would also have to be comaperd to reported 'crashes' OR perhaps its also including 'inicidents'. An incident includes a system failure even if not vital to flight, a blown tire, putting a dent in the hangar door, popping a rivet on the skin, etc...so are we certain that all of these were 'crashes' or 'incidents' if you want to make a statement more juicy for the spring summer of 1999, just throw the inicdents in with the actual crashes and you can make the mountain out of the mole hill easily. Asuming that everyting remained constant in training and flights during the sping / summer of 1999 is a bad guage as things got 'stepped up' so to say - nothing in military training or use remains a constant when the military is deploying to a 'conflict zone'.

Here is something that I found on the CNN site when trying to get statistics - is from the legal proceedings against Clinton (a president not widely liked by those in the US armed foces BTW!) for his use of the War Powers Act.

The lawsuit contends that between March 24 and April 28, 1999, "United States and allied aircraft flew over 11,500 sorties" over Yugoslavia, "an average of approximately 350 sorties per day."

"During the same period, the United States and allied aircraft launched over 4,400 confirmed air strikes on Yugoslavia territory, an average of over 100 per day. United States Armed Forces also launched over 180 cruise missiles against Yugoslavia during this time period. The United States has tens of thousands of military personnel involved in the military operations against Yugoslavia," the lawsuit said.

Yugolsavia is not a large nation and having 350 sorties a day is a full sky in my opinion. With most losses being surface to air (and helicopters being a big majority - slow moving bullet magnets...) its (tragicaly) purely acceptible losses from a military stand point. If you take it that all of the purported 218 deaths were jet fighters with one pilot and complare that with sorties flown (218/11500 = 0.018) its a relatively low number for such a massive air campaign against a nation with substantial air defence systems.

From my personal recolections of the time I remember how we (my family and friends - mostly military) were deploring the humanitarian crisis casued by the bombing. Targets were being hit over and over (even with confirmation of a destroyed target the first time - example was the radio tower hit 8 times because it was a 'propoganda' machine). Why? The military and to an extent the media all saw that in order to end the crisis quickly we / NATO needed to deploy the ground troops from day one and "restore order" (so that humanitarain supplys could be delivered and the roaming bands of ethnic cleansers could be stopped). But the (then) President Clinton knew that it would not look good for his VP, Al Gore when he wanted to go up for election in 2000 with an 'occupation' force (which had to be implimented regardlessly - and is still going to have to be there till my grandchildren are dead IMHO) after a bloody battle in which US servicemen died. Fro Clinton, it was too much of a situation that could turn into Vietnam and not look good at the voting box for the liberals in 2000. A few dead pilots and crew are nothing (politicaly) as compared to several thousand dad infantrymen. So he just kept telling the JCS to keep the AirForce bombing until they gave up. It was a situtation that the US military did not want to be in - regardless of the media spin - they want to get into these situations and end them in the shortest ammount of time - its those that sit in the oval office who make the final policy call.

On another point - you are all right - the West had no real idea what was going on there (and for six-pack Joe in front of the TV they still dont). Shortly after war books sprang up on bookshelves all across the US to tell the history and the reasons. I recall reading 'The Balkans' at night for several months as I tried to get a grasp of the complex history and situation of the region. Still, for most, its an anomoly and is overshadowed by more recent events. It will be years (decades) before any real historical research is done - sadly.

[Christian Zulus]

Yugolsavia is not a large nation and having 350 sorties a day is a full sky in my opinion. With most losses being surface to air (and helicopters being a big majority - slow moving bullet magnets...) its (tragicaly) purely acceptible losses from a military stand point. If you take it that all of the purported 218 deaths were jet fighters with one pilot and complare that with sorties flown (218/11500 = 0.018) its a relatively low number for such a massive air campaign against a nation with substantial air defence systems.

Dear Charles,

many thanks for your contribution .

No, if you look at Ivan's table http://members.tripod.com/IvanLucky/table.htm , most of the 218 KIAs are soldiers, field medics, rescue teams, etc. from helicopter crashes.

Only a small number of KIAs had been jet-pilots.

So, your ratio of comparison: flown sorties vs. pilot-KIAs will result in an even lower number.

AND Yugoslavia had in the 1990s one of the most sophisticated air defense systems in Europe - only to compare with Switzerland - either mobile or hidden in mountains and with state-of-the-art technology from the Russian Federation.

Best regards

Christian

[hunyadi]

Yes - they were mostly crew and pilot KIA in 'aireal losses' helicopters are bullet magnets (so is the A-10: great for killing tanks, but also a slow flying aircraft) plus the Air Rescue teams have the added problem of dealing with uncertain terrain and weather conditions so they have a higher 'crash' rate. Add in a guy with an assault rifle or shoulder fired missle at the crash site and the results get even worse for you. My bad math was just to make the point that even if they had all ben jet-jockeys - its still a low number.

Still - what Yugoslavia was able to bring down is not something to balk at. My hat is off to them.