NATO appears to be at war with the Serbians. The following is one perspective on this action. IS IT A GOOD THING? There does appear to be clear evidence that the Serbs are practicing ethnic cleansing. Driving people into snowy mountains without anything is a form of genocide. Burning villages and cities and destroying records so that people can not return is another way of clearing the Albania Muslims out. Gandhi's views shed a little light on the morality of the situation. Firstly, bombing is not moral. But neither is ethnic cleansing and genocide. To sit back and not oppose evil is to aid evil and that is a great wrong. If you can not oppose evil with soul force, then violence is the only alternative. To do nothing would be cowardliness or worse - active complicity. So to act with bombing is probably correct. Will a war solve anything in the long run? No. At best war will stop the immediate genocide. And when we win, the questions of how to get out are daunting. The Balkans is easy to enter and difficult to leave. Far from the "soft underbelly" of Europe, it is a land of ancient and enduring conflict. WAS IT STARTED WELL? President Clinton has begun an undeclared war. Constitutionally this is dubious. Was it necessary to leave the congress out? Maybe it was, due to the recent impeachment hoopla. Partisan politics would likely have denied President Clinton congressional approval. But even if approval had been sought the process would have had to begin months ago. A war takes a long time to set up. On this point the impeachment hearings clearly prevented this process. But what about involving the public? The American people do not understand this war. People do not know the history or the terrain. They have no historical commitment to protect people in that part of the world and the people we are protecting are Muslims which in the long run may lessen America's commitment. The net effect is that public support for this war is thin and unlikely to stand up in the long run. So was the war started well? No. And these weaknesses will tell in the long run. WHY IS THE PRESIDENT OF YUGOSLAVIA ATTACKING HIS OWN PEOPLE? The Serbian Kingdom took control of Kosovo after the First Balkan War. In so doing they acquired a large Albanian Muslim population. Yugoslavia was formed after W.W.I as a reward for our Serbian allies. Tito melded this people into a multi-racial state that didn't allow ethnic tensions on the surface. Consequently the Serbs are in the bizarre situation of attacking their own citizens, people who have been loyal to Yugoslavia since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Kosovo came under Ottoman control in 1389 when the Turks defeated Serbia's mounted knights in the Battle of Kosovo. In the battle the aristocratic class was wiped out, but the peasants were largely unharmed. They accepted Ottoman rule because at first they were less oppressive than their own nobles. Ottoman mounted soldiers took over the fiefs of Bulgarian, Serbian an Byzantine knights, but since they were away campaigning every summer, the could not meddle as much in local affairs. Even the practice of enslaving Christian boys into the Janisary Corp did not turn the peasants away from their new lords. Only the out law remnants of the old nobility continued to resist. It was from this source that the legend of Kosovo comes. The noble cause, the evil enemy, the defeat of good by evil, but the promise that good will rise again and eventually prevail. Conversion to Islam is seldom a sudden thing. To this day there are many Arabs who are Christian. Conversion usually takes around four hundred years. True to this pattern certain groups in the Balkans began to switch religions in the 16th century. Bosnian Slavs and Albanian hill tribes were the most thoroughly converted (though, Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians and others certainly converted individually). When the Ottomans stopped forcing Christian boys to enter the Janisaries they began to look to the newly converted Slavs and Albanians to fill the ranks. Much like the Abbassids turned to newly converted Arab city infantry militias in the 9th and 10th centuries. But unlike in the Middle East the conversion process stopped. By the end of the 17th century, Ottoman might was on the retreat. This was not fully realized within the empire but the first people to realize it were the Christians. The promise of rescue from Austria and later Russia gave the potential converts reason to hold out. By the end of the 18th century, nationalist ideals from the French revolution filter into the Balkans from Austria in the north and the Ionian islands in the south. A newly autonomous Servia, with Austrian support then begins the independence and slow deportation of Muslims out of Europe. The pattern of independence seeking in the Balkans tends to be the creation of a national myth in which a golden age of the past is touted and the Turks are demonized. For the Serbs, the Battle of Kosovo is the central myth. Once the poets have mobilized the people with a national literature, other peoples they begin to agitate for independence. Ottoman grants of ever increasing autonomy failed to quell the movements and instead accelerated them. Russian and other European pressure further weakened Ottoman control and lead to use of more repressive tactics in which Bosnian and Albanian soldiers were used to attack Balkan Christians - which lead to Russian intervention in the 1820s, 1850s, and 1870s. As independence was won, massacres of Muslims occurred with many moving back into the Muslim heartland. Today there is a concentration of Muslims in Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia and Bulgaria. In 1913 Serbia regained Kosovo. The majority Muslim population did not leave and there has been tension ever since. On the other hand, this population was loyal to Yugoslavia. Like the Jews, Muslim Albanians were sent to concentration camps and then under Tito's communist state they were given autonomy in 1974. This continued until President Milosovic came to Kosovo in 1989. WHAT IS MILOSOVIC UP TO? In 1989 President Milosovic came to Kosovo to make a search. His text was Serbian nationalist, specifically the Battle of Kosovo. Serbs would be victorious this time and the forces opposing Serbian greatness would be defeated. It turned out this group included, Slovenes, Croatians, Bosnians, Kosovars, and now Western Europeans. Likely also in this group are Turks, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Greeks, Hungarians, and Rumanians. In other words, Serbian nationalism views its neighbors as rivals. But Muslims are the worst since they are the living reminder of the defeat of 1389. What Milosovic gained in 1989 was the loyalty of the Serbian ultra nationalists. Which has kept him in power ever since. The TV news has many times commented that President Milosovic's motivation is really staying in power rather than maintaining the state. Power in Serbia - not Yugoslavia. The flag of Serbian nationalism's created a constitutional crisis in Yugoslavia. Tito's compromise consisted of a shared presidency. When time came to shift office holders nationalism refused to allow the compromise to continue. Without a union, the country began to break down into its component parts. Slovenia - with almost no fighting. Croatia with some solid fighting, Bosnia with considerable fighting, and now the worst fighting in Kosovo. At no time did President Milosovic try to preserve Yugoslavia. Instead his protégés attempted to create a greater Serbia. In Bosnia, "ethnic cleansing" was part of the game. In each instance, Yugoslavia grew smaller but President Milosovic remained in power. He could rightly claim to be supporting the nationalist cause. After all were not young Serbs going to Bosnia to fight the "Turks"? Which brings us to 1998. Kosovo was divided between many rival political faction. All wanted a return to Tito's 1974 settlement in which Muslim Kosovars had autonomy. Out right independence was only the goal of the small Kosovar Liberation Army. In the summer of 98, Serb police and military began fighting the KLA. Part of this fight was to clear out the boarder villages with Albania (a wise move to quell a guerilla war). Villagers were forced to leave and their wells were poisoned. So the boarder region became increasingly a wasteland. By late fall a compromise was reached to halt the fighting for the winter. A peace negotiation was tried and rejected in during the winter. That failure has lead to the present war and the ensuing genocide. Why? Controlling land is everything in the Balkans. He who occupies it is the winner. But previously, the Serbs have pulled back or lost after a fight in each province. But in Kosovo they fight and have caused the greatest movement of refugees since W.W.II. I think the reason lies in the legend of the Battle of Kosovo and President Milosovic's wish to remain in power. Serbian nationalism's heart is in Kosovo. Planted there by the Turks and centuries of Serbian poets. The fact that that region experience mass conversions to Islam in the 16th and 17th centuries is irrelevant. Since 1913, many Serbian's have moved to Kosovo, but peaceful settlement has not changed the balance of power. The land is still Muslim - and by analogy Turkish - the enemy. For Serbian nationalism to be victorious it must "retake" Kosovo fromt the "Turks". To give way in Kosovo is not an option. Or is it? The myth of the Battle of Kosovo is that the noble Serbian's fought the evil Turks and lost but were not defeated. Could President Milosovic have looked at that and the recent example of Saddam Hussein and formed a plan to lose? Losing to the combined might of NATO could not be held against him (after all NATO is like the Turk, powerful and evil). While making a stand like the Serbian's of old in Kosovo could only be seen favorable. Even after a bloody war, Serb dignity would be intact. And the leader and champion of that dignity could be retained as its leader. Diabolical! But a psychological possibility. WHAT ABOUT RUSSIA? Russia has an ethnic and historical tie to Serbia that dates back to the 18th century. When the Russians became the champions of Slavs in the Ottoman Empire a special relationship began that continued right through W.W.I, W.W.II, and under communist rule. The Russians will want to help the Serbs if they can. But Russia is down at the moment. They need Western help to recover. They are unlikely to intervene. But they will remember the kick. And that will come back to haunt the West. AIR WAR IN YUGOSLAVIA If there is one thing that the 20th century has taught it is that prolonged air war has never defeated a people. Only by occupying the ground is war won. Certainly the Serb army can be largely immobilized, and starved. But it can not be defeated. Yugoslavia is wretched country to fly in. Mountains, rocks, and cover everywhere. Unlike in Iraq, air power will have trouble finding tactical units. So once all the bridges are destroyed and all the factories in ruin, the planes will have no one to shoot at. Which means the infantry must be sent in. GROUND WAR IN YUGOSLAVIA It is easy to move into the Balkans, but hard to get out. There are no good options to invade Yugoslavia. The ground favors defense. A ground war will not be a walk in the park, like the Gulf War. The Serbs are good fighters, motivated, on their home soil, with a history to support their fighting to the bitter end. Remember in the Battle of Kosovo the Serbian's were wiped out - no survivors. So no one should think this will be an easy war. No matter what avenue of attack used, the Serbs will have months to dig in and prepare to defend. But it will take months to gather a big enough army to defeat them. Attack from Albania: This provides a friendly base and a potential place to create an independent Kosovar government to hand the land over to once it is gained. The disadvantage is that the ground if completely mountainous. Even starving Serbian's would inflict punishing casualties on this front. Attack from Macedonia: This will not be a friendly base. Recent transportation of Kosovar refugees by the Macedonian government and protests outside the US embassy at the start of the war suggest the Macedonians don't like the Muslims anymore than the Serbs do. This front is also mountainous but at least follows the route the Turks used to reach Kosovo. But is that a good thing? Attack from the North: Not mentioned by any news media is the possibility of attacking from Hungary (a newly admitted state of NATO). This would severely test this new member state but has many tactical advantages. First the land is passable, the main barriers being rivers. Historically this land has been taken from the north before. In the Middle Ages it was part of Hungary, and it still has a Hungarian minority. With the fall of Belgrade, the fight in Kosovo would not need to happen. The political leadership could not lose the capital without losing the war. But an attack from the north will anger Russia. And Russia boarders Hungary. CAN NATO POLITICALLY SURVIVE LARGE CASUALTIES? The West can win this war if it is willing to pay the price. I think it will be a high price. Before news of genocide by the Serbs came to light, I doubt very much the American people would have approved of even one casualty to protect Muslim Kosovars. But W.W.II like tactics, push our buttons, so getting troops in is possible. But large casualties would soon dampen our spirits. Only if a political coalition between President, Congress, and people is formed can a bloody war be sustained. And then only if it is for a just cause. Preventing Genocide is such a goal. But as of now I do not see such a coalition being formed. So can we win? Right now, I'm not certain. AFTER VICTORY, WHAT THEN? Say we win, by a southern attack. Can we get President Milosovic out? Only by going to Belgrade. Will this automatically oust him from power? Not if my analysis of Serb psychology is correct. Can the Kosovars be returned home? Yes, but only with years of aid. Can peace be restored? Probably, yes. Though the Balkans is littered with battle fields, its history also shows that it has period os peace. Some lasting decades. And what about the Russian? Now that's the real question. The West's interest lie in maintaining peace in Europe. The EU is moving slowly towards forming a real United States of Europe, which would be a boon to the world. But what of Russia? They are out in the cold. With their historical allie defeated their prestige suffers yet again. The West become their enemy, who takes advantage of them in their time of weakness. The seeds of anger and inferiority are planted. Not a good plan to maintain a secure Europe. So can a peace be made without the Russians? I don't think it should be. In fact, involving the Russians in stopping the violence ASAP would be helpful. Find a way to bolster Russian pride and sense of power. Make certain the have an important seat at the table of Europe. Integrate rather than segregate. In the long run this is the only direction that leads to peace. Will any of this matter in the long run? This century began with a war in which concentration camps were used to break the back of a people. The wars to this century have seen many genocides follow. In only a few cases did anyone do anything to try to stop them. Now at the end of the century we stand at the cusp of a war to do just that. It could be a profound moment. A magna carta so to speak, in which nations learn that they do not have the right to kill their residents due to race, religion or creed. It is a step toward world government. A scary move, but at least a morale one. There are worse ways to begin then new millennium. Back to Table of Contents -- Matrix Gamer #4 To Matrix Gamer List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1999 by Chris Engle. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com