Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

[Teddy Ruxpin]

That would be what the "Report to Moderator" button is for. But some how, I don't think Gunner meant the way your taking it.

Gunner has substantial time in Africa, working with African armies, so knows what he's talking about here.  By "aptitute" (putting words in his mouth), I suggest he's referring to the AU's inability to support an armoured vehicle fleet and a lack of technical education and or/driving experience, rather than an innate inability of soldiers to handle vehicles.

 

[AcornsRus]

Actually I think the wording is KEY.

It is true - anyone who has worked with a African contigent can tell horror stories:   The Grizzlies will last about a week if that.

Secondly it is specifically due to the that the country is a backwater full of non whites that the gov't knows it can act the way it does - People will flip the channel and promptly forget about it - thus the political impetus for sending troops will be gone.

Your comment does not address the context of the original posts.  

1. The question was not whether the Grizzlies would last, it was whether the people had the "aptitude" to employ Grizzlies.
Aptitude:
- An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent.
- Quickness in learning and understanding; intelligence.

2. Perhaps I missed the sarcasm in this post, but it was definitely not obvious.

Again, careful wording is important in a public forum and sarcasm doesn't translate well in the written form.  I know, I've done it before. :-[

-------------
Had to edit this in.  You folks obviously know a little about the people who made the comments (background, etc), I (and many others) do not. That is what I mean by careful wording in a public forum.
-----------

No more comments from me on this one.  I just wanted to draw attention to it - if I got it wrong I apologize to Gunner and Edward Campbell.

 

[paracowboy]

OK troops, break out the ol' dictionary and thesaurus. From now on, ALL posts will be carefully checked for grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I got my red pen all revved up.

 

[KevinB]

I think a bit of both - most of the AU soliders dont drive, have not driven ever.  While I dont think it is beyiond their capability to learn to drive - it is going to take time and effort to teach them the basics - let alogn the maintenance of the AVGP's.

My take on AU deployment is that it is a phenominal cash cow for the host governments - who take the UN funds to line their treasury and use slim to none to augment their soliders.

 

[Acorn]

One of the reasons ex-Soviet kit is so common, and still working, in many African, Middle Eastern, or Asian countries is that it is simple to operate and maintain, and even 2d and 3d line maint can be done by people who fabricate parts from scratch. "Western" equipment, in general, needs an extensive logistics trail, and is much more sensitive to things like dirty fuel and poor training.

There is also the added cultural "way they drive" which is generally incompatible with motor vehicles the way they've been designed. Our rules of the road and driving methods have evolved in sync with motor vehicles (though the more I drive Canadian roads, the more I feel we're backsliding through complacency). In general, people outside Europe and Gringo North America run vehicles 'till they break, and then have a "mechanic" (usually a guy who has been fixing vehciles in general since he was a child apprentice) who has no manuals or formal training, and who gets parts from scrapped vehicles or has them fabricated by his metalworker neighbour. Complex systems don't lend themselve well to this style, and require more preventative maint. Look at what vehicles last: Land Rovers and Land Cruisers, Benzs, ex-Soviet military vehicles, Pugeot cars, and Japanese vans and pickups - vehicles either built so anyone with a couple of wrneches and a five pound lump hammer could fix, or built in such numbers that there's always plentiful spare parts.

(Trivia point: 60% of all Land Rovers manufactured since they were first produced in the late '40s are still on the road and it's also thought to be the first motor vehicle seen by 70% of the world's population).

Acorn

 

[Edward Campbell]

Your comment does not address the context of the original posts.  

1. The question was not whether the Grizzlies would last, it was whether the people had the "aptitude" to employ Grizzlies.
Aptitude:
- An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent.
- Quickness in learning and understanding; intelligence.

2. Perhaps I missed the sarcasm in this post, but it was definitely not obvious.

Again, careful wording is important in a public forum and sarcasm doesn't translate well in the written form.  I know, I've done it before. :-[

-------------
Had to edit this in.   You folks obviously know a little about the people who made the comments (background, etc), I (and many others) do not. That is what I mean by careful wording in a public forum.
-----------

No more comments from me on this one.  I just wanted to draw attention to it - if I got it wrong I apologize to Gunner and Edward Campbell.

Apology accepted.

 

[Gunner]

I just wanted to draw attention to it - if I got it wrong I apologize to Gunner and Edward Campbell.

Apology accepted by me as well.

 

[atticus]

By "aptitute" (putting words in his mouth), I suggest he's referring to the AU's inability to support an armoured vehicle fleet and a lack of technical education and or/driving experience, rather than an innate inability of soldiers to handle vehicles.

Thats what I meant he was probably reffering to! 

 

[CBH99]

The situation in Sudan is absolutely disgusting, and its deplorable that the West would allow it to happen to obviously, yet still turn a blind eye to it.  Ah yes, politics.  I for one would love to see Canadian soldiers doing their part in ending the genocide in Sudan.  Isn't that what Canada is all about?  The obligation to protect?  Demonstrating moral leadership?  What other mission (No disrespect to the Op Athena folks at all) - but what other mission could the CF undertake that would make Canadians from coast to coast light up with pride?  Something has to be done, and it best be soon.

Just the other day, the head of one of the largest aid agencies in Sudan was arrested, but then later released on bail, for publishing reports about the mass rapes and other brutalities his agency has witnessed.  He said they have medical proof that hundreds, possibly thousands, of women have been raped by soldiers and militiamen.  However, when Sudan asked that the evidence be turned over to their authorities, he refused - saying it violated doctor/patient confidentiality.  Not to mention, the trust factor just isn't there. 

I'm just hoping there is a deployment there very, very soon.  (And not because I'm an armchair general.  I might be out of the CF now, but to me - that would be an ideal tour.  Personal opinion though.)

 

[Edward Campbell]

OK, lets assume, just for the sake of argument that there is some, any merit at all in the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine espoused by Pink Lloyd Axworthy et al but, due (at least) to lack of resources and will, ignored by successive Canadian governments.   If R2P is valid and if there is a god, etc then someone â “ goody-two-shoes peace loving, peacekeeping Canadians, for a start - ought to be there doing something.

Doing what?

It appears that a local militia â “ the Janjiweed â “ which may be a tool of the national (North African/Muslim) government is using fairly typical African militia (a.k.a. peace loving people's liberation movement) methods (one hesitates to dignify tem the with term tactics) to subjugate/terrorize/cleanse/eradicate the largely black, animist (Christian?) people of the Darfur region.   The solution to this problem is simple enough and can be accomplished in two phases:

1. Send in a fairly small number of seasoned, professional troops â “ Canadians, Indians, that sort of thing â “ and destroy the Janjiweed's will and ability to do anything except tend their flocks for a few generations; and

2. Send in legions of non-governmental do-gooders to toss truck loads of money (and fur coats and X-boxes) at the black people in/around Darfur.

Anything else, it seems to me, will be a colossal waste of time and effort.   If it is, indeed, our RESPONSIBILITY to protect these folks then the threat needs to be removed â “ that involves killing a lot brown folks so that the black folks will be safe.

Why?

The answer, it seems to me, again, must be that 'we' â “ Canadians and folks like us â “ understand what the responsibilities of the Government of Sudan are better than the Sudanese.   That implies, of course, that the Chinese might also have understood the responsibilities of the government of Tibet better than the Tibetan people did and may, right now, understand the responsibilities of the government of Taiwan better than the Taiwanese do.   Equally, Iran feels it has a responsibility to protect the people living along a thin strip of Mediterranean coastline; it plans to meet this responsibility by gassing or incinerating the Jews who moved in over the past century â “ what's sauce for the goose, etc.

R2P is an interesting doctrine â “ one which several major powers, including China, reject out of hand because it threatens to toss the Peace of Westphalia onto the dung heap of history.   Our modern rules for sovereignty have worked, more or less, for 350 years; do we really want to revert to, say, Imperial Rome's ideas on the subject?

The Sudanese civil war has been going on for a long, long time â “ several hundred years in one form or another, ever since militant Islam was blocked on its march up the Nile.   It is not clear to me that Sudan or the Balkans (about the value of which, measured in Pomeranian grenadiers' bones, I share Bismarck's views) merits the adoption of R2P.   That being said I think Canada's response is about right.   A touch contrary, I admit, but c'est la vie.

 

[Infanteer]

The Sudanese civil war has been going on for a long, long time â “ several hundred years in one form or another, ever since militant Islam was blocked on its march up the Nile.   It is not clear to me that Sudan or the Balkans (about the value of which, measured in Pomeranian grenadiers' bones, I share Bismarck's views) merits the adoption of R2P.   That being said I think Canada's response is about right.   A touch contray, I admit, but c'est la vie.

Thanks Edward, that was spot on.

I, for one, am not interested in seeing Canadian soldiers die so that these guys go to the sidelines only to resume killing eachother in 10-20 years.

 

[paracowboy]

Thanks Edward, that was spot on.

I, for one, am not interested in seeing Canadian soldiers die so that these guys go to the sidelines only to resume killing eachother in 10-20 years.

I am, however, willing to see Canadian soldiers kill so that bad guys get dead (janjaweed, and the Al Queda supporting gov't in Khartoum) and potential allies get power. Go in fast, kill the enemy, hand it over to someone we want in power, home for beer. Imperialism? Maybe. I don't care. Islamofascists are murdering people in grotesque manners. Islamofascism is the threat du jour. Kill bad guys. Do it often enough, people get the message.

 

[Pikache]

I don't think evidences are in dispute that there is some really bad human rights violations going on in Darfur.

If we truly care about this concept of human rights, why weren't we in there when this shit started?

Nuremberg trials set a precedent that national sovereignty is no cover to hide human right abuses.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don't think evidences are in dispute that there is some really bad human rights violations going on in Darfur.

If we truly care about this concept of human rights, why weren't we in there when this shit started?

Nuremberg trials set a precedent that national sovereignty is no cover to hide human right abuses.

There is a small thing called national sovereignty.  Sudan is a sovereign nation; it acts like one, just like we do.  It has a sovereign right to decide who may do what to whom within its sovereign territory.

We set our benchmark a couple of years back when we said, â Å“Canada does not invade sovereign nations unless the UNSC says it's OK.â ?  In early 2003 France said, â Å“Non!  Allied nations may not invade Iraq.â ?  Chrétien said: â Å“OK, dat's our policy â “ whatever France says.â ?  Now it is China which says, â Å“No!  We do not sanction white guys invading Sudan.â ?  There is no difference, at all, in these two issues.  If it was wrong to invade Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein then it is equally wrong to invade Sudan just because the Janjiweed are not the sort of folks we would invite over for dinner.

The Nuremberg trails made waging aggressive war a crime against humanity.  Germany invaded sovereign nations â “ Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc â “ on a very basic R2P pretext, saving ethnic Germans from oppression by their Czech and Polish masters, and its foreign minister (von Ribbentrop) was hanged for it.

I agree that some pretty bad things are happening in Sudan and Angola, Benin, Chad and right through to Zimbabwe, too.  I do not agree that gives us, or anyone else, the right or the responsibility to do something about it.  R2P is a deeply flawed doctrine â “ the result of too many mushy minds dealing with hard issues.  I agree with paracowboy re: how to fix it, if fixing is, indeed, to be done.

 

[Acorn]

I am, however, willing to see Canadian soldiers kill so that bad guys get dead (janjaweed, and the Al Queda supporting gov't in Khartoum) and potential allies get power. Go in fast, kill the enemy, hand it over to someone we want in power, home for beer. Imperialism? Maybe. I don't care. Islamofascists are murdering people in grotesque manners. Islamofascism is the threat du jour. Kill bad guys. Do it often enough, people get the message.

Unfortunately I don't think that would result in more than a band-aid solution. First, we would need to identify the "good guy" we want in power, then we'd be obliged to keep him there (no going home for a beer yet).

In the face of that, here's an analogy: as much as we despise the Liberals, would we accept it if the US stepped in, shot a few Liberals pour encourager les autres, and installed Stephen Harper in power? Even though many who post here want him there, would we accept him under those circumstances?

I wish things were as simple as you suggest, but unfortunately people tend to resent outside interference for their own good. It smacks of White Man's Burden.

Acorn

 

[paracowboy]

History shows that unless a nation has some sort of elective government, it implodes. History shows that unless a nation has some form of laissez faire economy, it collapses under it's own debt. History shows that when these events happen, violence occurs, and is inevitably exported. When this happens, Canadian die.
History shows that Africa has a real problem in establishing  elective governments without outside imposition.
In order to keep Canada secure and safe, we first have to ensure that no threat reaches us. The most effective way to do so, is to ensure that no nation on Earth wishes us ill. The best way to do so, is to give each nation's people a secure and stable country. The best way to do this, is to make every country on Earth embrace some form of democracy, with a capitalist economy.
You're thinking of Occupation. I'm not. We put the right people in power and leave. Occupying a country puts you in a position of responsibility for the day to day running of it. Screw that! We descend from the Heavens in a Righteous Fury, layeth the Holy Smack Down, then tell 'em to do what <insert names here> say, or we come back and kill everyone right down to the household pets.
We monitor the puppet gov't, ensuring that they meet the needs of the people, or we kill them. We ensure that the hungry are fed, the sick are tended, the homeless are housed, etc. We ensure that there are hospitals and schools built, that there is a free press, and that the populace can rest knowing that stability has taken hold. Should we find that our puppet head of gov't is back-sliding, we kill him. And his cabinet, and his replacements.  If necessary, we build mountains of skulls, a la Attila the Scourge of God (a personal role model). Once the locals have a taste of Democracy, and once the free economy starts working it's magic, voila! we have an ally.

Oh, and I would accept Harper under those conditions. Or even Harpo, for that matter.

 

[paracowboy]

to expound: What the Khartoum regime is doing is evil. By exhibiting physical and moral cowardice, by not putting an end to their crimes, we become complicit in them, and culpable for any future crimes they go on to commit.

Further, the Khartoum government has demonstrated, clearly, that they are a threat to my country when they allied themselves with Osama bin laden and Al Queda. Canada is still number 5 with a bullet on their hit list. And I have sworn an oath to defend the citizens of my country from all threats.

More, the most effective way to eliminate threats to my countrymen is not to destroy them as they appear. This is simply reacting, and they will always have the advantage. The best way is to remove the breeding grounds from which these threats spawn: poverty-stricken dictatorships. By exporting (forcibly when necessary) democracy in whatever form is most palatable to the nation/culture in question, along with an economic free enterprise system, we give the people of the world what they want most: a safe and secure environment. A chance at a better life. Thus, removing any possibility of conflict. Read Sun Tzu: â Å“To win 100 victories in 100 battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.â ? How much more so, than, to subdue the enemy BEFORE he exists!

And before anyone says â Å“democracy is not natural to these peopleâ ? (whomever 'these people' may be), or â Å“it's not our place to force our views on someone elseâ ?, let me remind you that democracy was 'not natural' to the people of Iraq or Afghanistan. They seem to have taken quite a liking to it, when they got a taste. And we forced our views on the people of German and Japan. Last I checked, they're doing pretty well for themselves.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Prof. Noah Novogrodsky (see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30415/post-220309.html#msg220309 ) says, in an E-mail, â ? Stay tuned for my next piece encouraging greater funding for the troop levels you describe ...â ?

I hope that emerging leaders of the human rights movement â “ which is how I would classify Novogrodsky â “ will see that means are necessary for ends and lend their support to efforts to make Canada capable of making choices about the ends it wants to pursue.

I need to specify that I am not convinced, that R2P, as enunciated by people like Pink Lloyd Axworthy, is a sustainable doctrine.  It leads, it seems to me, towards another empire â ?acquired in a fit of absence of mind.â ?

 

[Mineguy]

Im ex cf, Ive been here in sudan for a year and a half dead smack in the centre of the country living in a tent. Bordering darfur.

This is even worse then iraq where ive also been. For example an analogy internationals use around here is when trying to understand this mentailty in khartoum is Youre talking about people here that will paint themselves into the deep end of a swimming pool and then hang down to paint the rest....they do it at every level in some form or another. Sometimees my days are so frustrating.

Just my opinion but Its impossible to negotiate for anything with khartoum without us being in charge, they are corrupt,only like su for the money (and when the worlds flavour of the week changes its bussniss as usual here) even democracy would not work here cos in fact no form of govt will work  well , its africa,  its sad but only dictatorships work really well as its all theyre used to,everything else will be half ***, if you give them somthing its broke in a day, a way to earn money and develop, somebody tries to take it forcefully, its a real mafia paradise and only a fence and a gun saves anyone. this will not stop until time stops.We can only stop things as per the flavour of the week for now if we can ever manage to get in control.    In darfur They have been doing the same tactic milosevic did in bosnia now for quite a while (janjaweed the cetniks) and the UN isnt any smarter as theyre falling for the same trick again at point blank range just as stupid. Hit the aid agencies and nationals in the agencies so they pull out of the killing zones and nobody is there to witness what happens outside the gates. There will be another srebrencia here some day and the un will wash its hands again just the same. This mission is unprofor under a diffrent name so far.

All khartoum did was sign a peace deal to get aid and funding from the world and that money goes to various places not all of where intended i am sure. Yet they signed a deal to take over parts of this country (but didnt sign for darfur-too much of a loss of control and then they cant force their plans anymore) that even the people of those parts didnt understand before they signed it. The spla in the nuba mountains fought 23 years for the area im in and they are only now figuring out that they will not get a referendum (and this was clearly written in the deal) and the area will be 100% north controlled, think there will be many christian churches here then?i doubt theyll roll ovr and take it...so now they feel that another war is better than a bad peace so as you see its a revolving circle. And the most ridiculous thing is that they have eygptian troops coming in here as the UN, the very guys who supplied and were freinds of the north in the war, along with other foreign nations like iraq on the front lines here.   This is africa boys! If you got somthing somebody else wants it, so thats why they do all this crap and massacre, handing out water and food only makes more bussniss here and makes more crime, and then of course they want to be paid to unload the food youre giving them or they wont unload it. They in khartoum have forced their islamic way on the blacks in sudan since the brits left and there will never be peace.

All i hear in this supposed new peace where i am is shooting every night and there are still checkpoints and weapons everywhere in the supposed zone of mutal co operation (but yet 100% muslim control of the area that they have to hand over after fighting for it for 23 years)....this is far from a sorted out soverign country where everybody agrees. Its a dictatorship supported by china, russia and others in the past and continuing etc...and still we have norway, the usa supporting the south and in the peacekeeping troops and other troops sneaking around, its very strange combinations here.   The an troops here are crap, as a matter any african troops here will be useless to prove points, what we need here is a nato type mission with units like the airborne regiment. Thats the only way youll get anything done around here.

In sudan people will not respect you unless you build a fence, same as show whoes in charge. With an troops in charge bussniss just goes on as usual. But also I rememebr a janjaweed said to a freind of mine in darfur and i say this just in case anybody thinks of ever sending real soldiers in here, he said that if a international force ever comes in here, theyll be slaughtered. So as you see you should be scared he said.Im sure he will feel the same being shot at 2.5 km away by the internationals he will slaughter. Thats bussniss as usual, cos khartoum would thne loose control and the way to deal with internationals in sudan is if you loose control of them to manipulate them  they will find a way to call you a spy or anything, much like they will cook up all sorts of excuses  why they refuse international troops, its their way of maintaining control. Its just a revolving mess but if canada can get into it with our troops and we can get more internationals  troops in here we might just sort it out for now. But after all its africa like i said.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I hope I don't sound too callus and cruel (at least no more so that I really am) when I say that Canada has no interests in Sudan â “ in Africa, as a whole, for that matter, and we should never send troops to places where we have no interests.  Aid, yes â “ even government to government aid (which is nothing more nor less than a legal bribe and ends up, mostly, in the Swiss bank accounts of black kleptocrats) â “ but no troops.  We can, properly, waste money â “ that's only a combination of political ineptitude and public ennui - but it is immoral to waste lives.

We have a national responsibility to protect and promote our national interests and we may, indeed should send out ships and soldiers into harm's way to do that â “ to protect our interests.  We have, in my view, neither a responsibility nor a right to protect others or their interests â “ that is up to them.  We may provide aid â “ we may even provide covert aid to help terrorists overthrow ostensibly friendly governments â “ but we should not invade (we have no right) nor send any troops unless our interests are at stake.

I have said elsewhere â “ see e.g. the attachment at: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/17947/post-182791.html#msg182791 - that Africa will sink in utter chaos.  You can send any combination you like of the entire US military establishment and the EU's combined treasuries â “ Africa will still sink into absolute chaos; probably in my lifetime and I'm in my'60s.  A significant percentage â “ maybe 25% of African adults are going to die over the next 20 years of AIDS.  No nation, much less a poor, disorganized continent can survive such a blow.  The next two or three generations of Africans will be poorer, less educated, less sophisticated, less able (in terms of the 21st century) than is now the case.  Africa is, already, a basket case in those same 21st century terms, when it (its people) is less able then you tell me: what's below basket case?

If Canadians insist on rescuing Africa then we had better line up a coalition of the generous so that we can hire an imperial administration: I favour India for the task.  (The Europeans, by and large, were lousy, incompetent colonial masters.  There is no reason to expect that the Americans are made of sterner (or smarter) stuff.)  We may, in the interests of realpolitik have to split the place between India and China but that's OK, too.  India needs a hinterland (in Mackinderish terms) and Africa can provide that â “ India and China could, also, use some busywork to keep them both out of strategic mischief.