Talk:Kosovo War

Sources

I think that it is obvious that campaign was humiliation for NATO. 78 days were necessary for 13 countries with 1000 modern planes to force tiny country with some 50 unmaintained planes to accept decent capitulation. Also, NATO made too many collateral damages, so we can conclude that either NATO intelligence and pilots are idiots or they deliberately attacked civilians. Is this ([British THE SPECTATOR, 11 March 2000 Editorial, Page 7)] good source? --Max Sterling (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, this was the first war actually won exclusively through aerial bombardment. That merits recognition. Thorvelden (talk) March 8, 2012

Yeah, but after 78 days against 20 times weaker opponent, which despite total air inferiority fought well on the ground. Considering how much USA are spending on military, training and advanced weapons, everything except quick victory is humiliation. But nobody will remember precious strikes on military targets. For the most of the time bombed empty barracks, wooden mockups, residential areas, bridges, industrial complexes, heating plants, foreign embassy and columns with refugees. Not to mention that the enemy with Vietnam war-era radars and missiles could lock-on and shot down top-secret plane. --Max Sterling (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The larger the millitary the less efficient it is, generally. With the US taking this to the absurd. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 06:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. May I now remove citation needed template or should I put source I cited in my previous post or should I find another? --Max Sterling (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. The statement that you're trying to back up is "From [a] military point of view, the operation was great embarrassment for NATO." How long would you expect them to take? This was not 1914, after all. Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 07:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

About a month. That much was needed in Desert Storm. --Max Sterling (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The difference between Desert Storm and this invasion seems to be that the Gulf war was a bombing campaign for a month, following which NATO invaded on the ground and won basically immediately. In Kosovo, they don't seem to have wanted to actually invade on the ground, and relied solely on bombing and these "poorly trained KLA fighters" you mention. Additionally, the 'desert' aspect probably came into it somewhere.

I would argue that it was not a military embarrassment, but a more general one (esp. in the PR department). Note, say, the Libyan Civil War of last year: if you are just bombing, and relying on rebels for the ground, you are going to be slower at winning than if you were running the ground troops aswell. Of course, here we also have the 'collateral damage', which does not seem to have been a cock-up when it comes to strategy so much as, again, PR etc. Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 08:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if your foe bet your allies, despite fact that A-10s were constantly flying over their heads, that is failure. When NATO spends missiles in vain destroying wooden mockups or logs disguised as SAM sites it is also failure. But I didn't intend to debate over military aspects here, I'm concerned more with causes and aftermaths. I wrote all of this so readers can understand why anti-USA sentiment is strong here. If you agree, I'll remove citation tag and from military point of view. --Max Sterling (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)