General Sir Michael Rose - Goražde

General Sir (Hugh) Michael Rose, (born 1940 in what was then British India), often known as Mike Rose, is a retired British Army General. As well as commanding 22 SAS, his best known appointment was as Commander UNPROFOR Bosnia in 1994 during the Yugoslav Wars.
Kosovo is Serbia

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• General
• Sir
• Michael
• Rose
• bosnia
• gorazde
• serbia
• serbs
• niksoft

[Hperman09]

@JChristopher17 They were ammunition depots and other strategic targets which the Serbs used also have a wide open space. NATO and U.S. pilots are extremely careful when it comes to pinpointing the targets. The Bosnian and Croatian Army after airstikes on the Serbs during the 1995 NATO bombing campaign used the advantage to drive the Serbs out of their territory easily. The people of Bosnia never asked for NATO ground troops, only the lifting of the embargo and full airstrikes.

[Hperman09]

@JChristopher17 I agree that Bosnia had so many towns and cities in which something Libya and Iraq don't have. However, U.S. spy aircraft manage to take pictures where Bosnian Serbs positions were stationed at like their artillery guns around Sarajevo and relied on relay stations around Bosnia. The pictures take by those spy aircraft was done in order for NATO aircraft, UN battery guns, and navy ships to pinpoint targets on Serb positions easily. It had been done that since 1993.

[JChristopher17]

@Hperman09 What you say is true, the balance would have been improved. When the US advisors were put into Bosnia, they did help the situation in the Army. This would have taken them some time, and airstrikes were difficult in Bosnia. In Libya and Iraq, very open spaces were helpful to airstrikes. Not so in Bosnia, and for an effective fight against Serbs, ground forces were much more use than air. Better to lift the embargo when Bosnians could use the arms effectively, after strategic training.

[Hperman09]

@JChristopher17 Most historians say that lifting the arms embargo would have never save Bosnia, it would help balance the conflict against the Serbs even more what than it is. It would never saved Bosnia but it would help balance the conflict even more. Also the Bosnian and Croatian Army get a lot of help from U.S. Special Forces for training and how to coordinate attacks against the Bosnian Serbs shortly after the Bosnian-Croat alliance was formed in 1994. Such as Operation Storm, etc.

[JChristopher17]

@Hperman09 With the embargo lifted, there were two problems. 1st, the Croats and Bosnians had a shaky alliance at best. Both had different agendas, and Bosnians distrusted Croats since WW2 and the Ustashi. 2nd, Bosnian Army was brave, but poorly led - lions led by donkeys, we British know about that from WW1. The generals were simply afraid of the Serbs, and didn't have sufficient strategy to beat them in battle. Therefore, it is uncertain that lifing the arms embargo would have saved Bosnia.

[Hperman09]

@JChristopher17 The Bosnian and Croatian Army feel that they needed massive airstrikes on the Serbs in order to regain most of the territories, push most of the serbs out into Serbia, and hope to pressure the Serbs into stopping the war. They first needed the UN arms embargo off their backs but Europe however refused to do so many times.

It wasn't until the summer of 1995 when Clinton unilaterally lift the embargo then bombed the Serbs that allowed Bosnian/Croat Army to do what they could get.

[Hperman09]

@JChristopher17 There is no need for NATO ground troops. We don't need to as long as we have Bosnian and Croatian Army doing the work on the ground because NATO valued more of their troops than any other as possible. The 1995 NATO bombing campaign against Bosnian Serb Army made the difference for the Bosnian and Croatian Army as it allowed them to retake the territories back the Serbs took earlier.

A lot of Bosnian and Croat Army can't fight back because they don't have massive airstrikes.

[JChristopher17]

@Hperman09 I agree that the UN was put into an impossible situation, as the Serb leaders never wanted anything less than victory. However, Clinton had already seen a peace enforcement turn into a massacre in Somalia, and had no will to put US troops into Bosnia. Only NATO ground forces would have made a difference, and NATO didn't want to deploy, but try to punish Serbs from safety. That didn't work, and Bosnians, Serb civilians and UNPROFOR paid the price for NATO's lack of thought.

[Hperman09]

@JChristopher17 It's stupid to send UN peacekeepers into the war-zones. Who in the right mind was to send peacekeepers into war? Clinton and it's admistration was already working out a plan with Bosnian and Croat Army to drive all Serbs into Serba out in pressuing Serbia to end in 1994 but due of Europe's refusal to lift the embargo, it was scrapped and Clinton didn't do a damn about it. After the arms embargo was lifted and trained the Bosnian/Croat army, it was ready to massive airstrikes.

[JChristopher17]

@Hperman09 The trouble was, in 1993/1994, Bosnian Army could never have defeated Serbs, even working with Croats. UN was there to give humanitarian aid, could not have done this without arms embargo, or would have taken heavy casualties due to more fighting. Airstrikes would also have meant UN no longer able to deliver aid. World had no political will to declare war on Sebs for any reason - empty threats and half-effective airstrikes. To solve problem quickly would need large ground army...