Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

[pbi]

Wow...great stuff so far! A couple of random stream of consciousness thoughts:

The USMC in Afgh when I was there (04-05) were doing seven months as the norm. This appeared to work for the Marine Inf Bn that was there, but  I have to wonder what the morale effect in the CJTFHQ was (I never brought it up...) on Army guys there for a year with very good chance of an extension with little notice, or a short turnaround;

I have heard both Dallaire and Mackenzie speak at different times and places, and I much preferred Dallaire.(at the time I heard him, which was 1998...) The two were regular speakers at USMC C&SC Quantico (that's where I heard Dallaire) and competed for top spot as the most popular speaker of  the year. Dallaire held the US military audience spellbound, and provoked much active debate afterward; and

I'm much in favour of seeing the Indans take on Darfur. I had the great pleasure to serve alongside the Indian Army on ONUMOZ in Mozambique 1993: a very professional and capable army, with a good ethno/religious mix of Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, Jains, etc. that might be helpful in the Sudan situation. I visited one of their field units a couple of times and I was highly taken by the order, professionalism and very strict discipline. And, as one poster noted, they are not at all afraid to use force. (My Indian friends couldn't understand all the upset over what happened in Somalia-one told me had deployed to a riot back home and shot 20 people, at least) Of course, randomly shooting 20 people may not be the be the best course of action in all cases...

(OK-well..that was three random thoughts...)

Cheers

 

[paracowboy]

on India:

I can't see them going into a Muslim nation. They have enough trouble keeping Kashmir quiet, even with their new cooperation from Pakistan. Not to mention the Bangladesh border, and normal sectarian violence.

Not only would an operation in Sudan not be in their interests, it would fly directly contrary to it.

 

[pbi]

Yes, but if Africa cannot produce any more forces, and "Europeans" (by which I include North America, Brazil, Argentina and AUSNZ are not wanted, there are not a lot of sources of good troops IMHO.

Cheers

 

[2 Cdo]

Good job Lew! Daillaire really needs to STFU and leave soldiering to SOLDIERS! :threat:

 

[rifleman]

I've always thought that we could send all the forces on operations and give 6 month tours of Canada. This of course would cause the need for a new Domestic Tour Medal

 

[GO!!!]

Several points,

I've heard Dallaire speak recently here in Edmonton; it was revolting. He, in fifty minutes, did a hatchet job on the US, the war on terror, anyone "who uses violence" as a method of achieving political goals, and the tories.

He then stated that we should be "addressing the root causes of terror" and not deploying troops unless it was in our nation's defence.

For his finale, he told some stories about Rwanda (leaving out the parts where he failed to do his job and let his troops get killed) and proceeded to shed some crocodile tears for the Rwandans. Not a word about the Belgian Paras. Not a word of the crisis of leadership the whole mission had. He then pocketed his ten thousand dollar speaker's fee and signed some books (for another modest fee).

The man's only skills (IMHO) are that he is a skilled orator and actor. His lack of military, leadership and ethical skills speak for themselves.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

So you didn't pretend to get a book signed and give him a throat punch?

 

[GO!!!]

So you didn't pretend to get a book signed and give him a throat punch?

In a testament to my self control and manners, no.

I was tempted to ask him a few pointed questions, but given the adoring clutch of senior officers shamelessly competing for a picture with him, decided better of it.

Opportunity lost? Perhaps.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Yes I think you did.  At the very least it would have been nice to watch him squirm.

 

[Chubbard]

I must be missing something here, and I am assuming that you folks know something abou Dallaire I didnt learn from his book or the CBC. Could someone explain how poor leadership killed the Belgians, I thought that they where supposed to secure a building or something and got overwhelmed.

 

[pbi]

I must be missing something here, and I am assuming that you folks know something abou Dallaire I didnt learn from his book or the CBC. Could someone explain how poor leadership killed the Belgians, I thought that they where supposed to secure a building or something and got overwhelmed.

I think we did this one already, didn't we? At: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35643/post-290702.html#msg290702 and a couple of others, IIRC?

Cheers

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I seriously doubt anyone would call themselves a numpty in there own book.

 

[3rd Horseman]

GO,  very well said, I know him well and you hit the nail on the head.

 

[GAP]

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/06/20/sudan.darfur.ap/index.html[/color]]http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/06/20/sudan.darfur.ap/index.html


Sudan won't allow U.N. force in Darfur

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 Posted: 1634 GMT (0034 HKT)


"We will not accept colonial forces," in Sudan, President Omar al-Bashir said•

Sudan, eastern rebels set truce

KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) -- President Omar al-Bashir vowed on Tuesday that he will never allow U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur, his strongest rejection yet of the United Nations' plan to try to halt violence in the war-torn region.

"This shall never take place," al-Bashir said of the U.N. deployment. "These are colonial forces, and we will not accept colonial forces coming into the country."

"They want to colonize Africa, starting with the first sub-Saharan country to gain its independence. If they want to start colonization in Africa, let them chose a different place," he told reporters at a press conference alongside South African President Thabo Mbeki.

Al-Bashir has shown great reluctance over the past months to allow peacekeepers into Darfur, and Tuesday's comments were his most direct rejection.

The U.N. wants to send a beefed-up peacekeeping forces to replace a 7,000-strong African Union force in conflict-wracked Darfur that has largely been unable to stop the violence there.

Nearly 200,000 people have been killed and more than 2 million displaced in Darfur since rebel groups made up of ethnic Africans rose up against the Arab-led Khartoum government in early 2003. The government is accused of responding by unleashing Arab militias known as the janjaweed who have been accused of some of the worst atrocities -- but it denies any involvement.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

[Kirkhill]

The next word I want to hear out of Jack's mouth:

"INVASION!!!!"

 

[MarkOttawa]

Talking about a serious Canadian military role is nonsense anyway as the UN  has made it clear it does not want Western boots on the ground (full text not online).
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20060517.DARFUR17%2FTPStory%2FTPInternational%2FAfrica%2F&ord=426383&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

UN diplomats say the force is expected to be largely drawn from African, South Asian and Islamic nations so as to reduce opposition to the move in Khartoum, while the United States and NATO would provide logistical support behind the scenes.

And NATO is not interested in providing boots on the ground.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-05-24T160837Z_01_L24517616_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SUDAN-DARFUR-NATO.xml&archived=False

The African Union has accepted a NATO offer to extend its assistance in Sudan's violent Darfur region, the Western military alliance said on Wednesday, stressing its presence there would remain small.

NATO provided training and transport to African Union troops struggling to quell the violence there earlier this year and has signalled its willingness to provide more help..

"It means a limited number of NATO personnel there. From what has been agreed now between NATO and the AU it would not require a significant expansion of the numbers we have now," he [NATO spokesman James Appathurai] said, adding NATO has had at most 15 trainers on the ground.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Letter just sent to the Star:

'Jim Travers writes (July 8)
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1152309009577&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467
that one government justification for updgrading the Canadian Air Force's airlift capability is that this would allow "a more satisfying role for this country in, say, Darfur..."  He then maintains this is a false justification since "Fighting the U.S.-led war on terror is more central to Ottawa's interests than losing Canadian lives trying to save some in Africa."

This constant talk by our pundits--and many politicians--of a possible major Canadian role in Darfur is simply silly.  The government of Sudan has made it clear it will not accept an UN force for Darfur.  There is no chance the UN Security Council will authorize a force without Khartoum's agreement.  Such an authorization would in effect be approval to invade Sudan; China (with large oil interests in Sudan) and Russia (with both energy and arms sales interests) would certainly veto any such resolution.

In any event, UN officials have made it clear that should a UN force ever be approved for Darfur the "boots on the ground" should come from African, Muslim and South Asian countries--not western ones, for reasons that should be obvious.  All that is wanted from the west (read NATO) is logistical and other kinds of support. 

So there is, contrary to the Darfur straw-man raised by Mr Travers, no realistic possibility for any susbstantial number of Canadian soldiers being needed for Darfur.  Let them get on with the job in Afghanistan without this continual musing that they might be better employed in a mythical mission in Darfur.'

Mark
Ottawa

 

[George Wallace]

Well, Darfur is in the limelight again.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060709/east_sudan_060709/20060709?hub=World

The only security in the region is 7,000 poorly equipped troops of the African Union, struggling to patrol an area larger than France.

The union wants the United Nations to take over security and send in up to 20,000 UN troops backed by NATO forces.

However, Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has continually rejected a U.N. deployment, making efforts to bring in the troops more difficult.

"The U.N. is going to go in," U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Jendayi Fraser said. "And it would be in the interest of the government of Sudan, I believe, to be seen to be proactive rather than having been pushed into a situation that is inevitable."

 

[GAP]

Just seen on CTV that the African Union is asking the UN to have NATO and others physically go into Sudan...

 

[MarkOttawa]

NATO has for some time agreed to provide logistic, transport and other support, but has also made it clear there will not be NATO "boots on the ground".  The current situation in Afstan will only reinforce that position.

Mark
Ottawa