Part of why i suggested an Arabic force was because one side was ethnicaly Arabic. I figured that if they were policing their own, some of the disasterous cultural mistakes we keep making could be avoided. You are right though about there being no good options. We are not long on friends in that part of the world, although making Libia help out does have some sort of … ok back on the planet now.
The rush to arms always seems to me to presume easy answers. There are no easy answers, and there are very few situations it isn’t possible to make worse.
Come on, with LIBYA in charge of human rights, how could anything go wrong?
I HOPE the US doesn’t get sucked into this mess…it will be 10X as bad as Somalia. Let’s report on this, and see how the Islamic nations respond to this? Clearly, they are upset about Iraq, but when it comes to the slaughter of Sudanese…who in the Arab world gives a damn?
I’m not putting words in ralph’s mouth, so flame me if your thin skin is penetrated.
I can’t beleive I missed the obvious UN reference. :smack: self- :wally
Send in the caring, compassionate French! They know how to handle foreign conflicts! They’ll do a bang-up job in Sudan for sure! Unless they have oil contracts with Sudan’s leader and need him to remain in power.
I am sorry, If I am willing to believe that Bush’s motives had a little more complexity than “Blood for Oil” you dont get to scream that the only motive the French had for disagreeing was oil. Perhaps having been talked into Vietnam by the US they kind of had a bitten shy thing going on. I don’t care.
Whatever their motives were they were right. The Iraqis did not have WMD. We were not welcomed as heros. Even if this was a good idea, the plans would have benifited hugely from the month or two the French (and many of our military planers) were asking for. It is an old joke. It is a tired joke. It is a stupid joke.
Yes, when WE prop up a dictator because it’s in our own interests, it’s cool. When the French do it, obviously they’re corrupt and conniving…
I wish I knew why the fuck duffer is ranting about Iraq and crying Bush-hater, but as usual, I don’t. tagos simply made reference to the way Halliburton bilked the US government for money in Iraq by overcharging for its services and said in Sudan the same should not be allowed. I must not be smart enough to realize that only people who hate Bush like transparency or prefer to have UN approval for international military action. My eyes are wide open now, fortunately.
I’m not as up to date on the Darfur situationn as I should be, but sitting back and ignoring a Rwanda redux would be an awful idea. On the other hand, I think a very international force would be INFINITELY PREFERABLE to an American one even if you ignore the ‘overextended’ issue. (Would 1,400 troops really fix this, SentientMeat?) Sending troops from Iraq into another Middle Eastern country would just convince more people that America is out to get the Middle East one nation at a time. Not a good idea.
ummm… I think you’ve got the Vietnam thing backwards. However I agree with the rest. It would have been much to be preferred if the French would have backed up the Iraq campaign (I just don’t think it would have ever happened – couple months or not). The French have an effective military and experience in conducting campaigns far from home, a broad range of contacts in the region and they’re not the ones with impossible naïve “compassionate” policies (that’d be the Germans – actually I’d suggest the American right would be better served in directing their scorn at Germany rather than France)
Of course it’d also be very much preferred if the French would back up any initiative in Sudan (which I don’t think will ever come) – and a perfect way to try to mend old differences.
Actually I think you are right. I was using notes from a class I took recently. The Prof said the as part of containment policy the Americans convinced the French to try to overthrow Ho Chi Minh and take back Vietnam. That the French didn’t want to do it, and thought it was unwinable but we paid them to do it. I have been unable to locate any other sorce for this theory, and there have been other errors from this Prof. So I appologise. I should have checked first.
Definitely going to want to check the facts on this as your Prof was just wrong. Either that or you misunderheard him/her (which I doubt…I’d guess s/he is just wrong).
As for the OP:
Yes, definitely, though with a few conditions. First off, the US does NOT contribute the bulk of the forces used in the Sudan. As other posters have already said, it would be a bad idea for myriad reasons…not least of which, IMHO, some other nations need to step up and do the heavy lifting on this one. This is not to say that the US is the only nation that does the heavy lifting, but I think its time for the EU to really start pulling their own weight on these kinds of humanitarian catastrophies throughout the world. The US can contribute military intellegence and other related assets, and perhaps some carrier/air support, but thats it.
Second the EU fully backs the initiative. No equivocating, no half ass measures, no bullshit or teary eyed ‘no more war’ crap (I’m talking from a national level here…of course there will be plenty who protest the EU involvement in this thing for personal reasons…more power to em). They can do this in the form of monetary support if they (i.e. the individual countries of the EU, as the EU doesn’t currently have a unified military) don’t have the forces (the US can also contribute a like amount of monetary support), or they can contribute troops and supplies for a multinational peace keeping force. Though its outside of NATO’s scope I’d LIKE to see it as a NATO operation instead of a standard blue helmet UN operation, as I think it would be more effective for Sudan that way.
If it has to be a UN operation then they need to seriously think through their ROI for any forces they put on the ground. Either way there should be some serious backing from the UN in the form of concrete resolutions that are focused on helping Sudan and providing a solid framework that is goals oriented with a clear final goal and exit strategy.
You will probably be shocked but I agree with you 100% on this. It IS a horrible humanitarian crisis and we need to do something about this…right now!
For those who scorn the peacekeeping abilities of nations other than the US, it should be noted that it is often the funding which prevents effective peacekeeping than any flaws in the training or application of a particular nation’s troops. Certain nations seem to be good at certain jobs - if all nations kept up their agreed payments to the UN then operational efficiency would likely increase without any requirement that the bigger players sent more of their own troops.
That is quite a contingent if their only job is to define and defend a safe haven. (Of course, a couple of hi-tec tanks and helicopters for rooting out and ‘discouraging’ anyone who feels like shelling a safe-haven from a distance, like at Srebrenica where only 200 lightly armed troops were stationed, wouldn’t go amiss!) As xtisme says, they must be well equipped and sanctioned to discharge lethal force. The lesson of Srebrenica must be learned well, but it is also worth noting that such small, lightly armed contingents were effective at shielding civilians from the worst excesses of the war elsewhere in Bosnia, and indeed in other conflicts since, such as the joint British/French operation (with UN help) in Sierra Leone and the UN mission in the Ivory Coast.
Mogadishu was a nightmare peacekeeping scenario - even ‘full’ deployment would have done little to assuage the outright urban house-to-house civil war. The US and UN should still be congratulated for trying.
Wouldn’t this be a wonderful time for the Chinese to make an entry onto the global peacekeeping stage?
Under a UN mandate, of course - and extremely soon.
There’s a better chance that George Bush converts to Wicca than the Chinese undertaking a peacekeeping mission. So far, China’s reaction to the whole Sudan-genocide thing has been that countries do not have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of others.
The reasoning is that if countries can “interfere” in the internal affairs of others, China might come under criticism for its miserable human rights record. God forbid. :rolleyes:
I think the US should provide financial and logistics support for an army consisting of largely the United African defense force backed by UN observers. This way, everyone wins, the US get to act as the good guy without sparking anti-american sentiment by putting boots on the ground, the UA finally get some legitimacy and the UN gets to show it’s still relevant in todays world.
There is no real need for the US to act as sole financial or military beneficiary. If everyone (including the US) just coughed up their share of the $2 *billionalready owed to the Peacekeeping fund there would be much greater scope for rapid intervention.
This fascinating Q&A with UN workers gives great insight into intervention and peacekeeping. It is always more complex than it first appears.
Yes I would support armed humanitarian intervention.
The US need not be involved if it feels this would be a problem. A multinational force with more teeth than the blue helmets would surely help. If you want some kind of leadership, the British (well I would say that wouldn’t I) seem to do quite well in these operations these days (except Northern Ireland).
As would I. Under a UN mandate and with full engagement rights.
An international force (including Irish troops) is needed immediately.
In fact if logistically possible I would say that US involvement would probably hinder rather than help with all the animosity(to put it lightly) against the US and it’s troops at the moment.
European only intervention in Sudan is the answer since having American troops or support, no matter how minor, will be viewed badly by the world. After the bang up job the Europeans did when Yugoslavia fell apart, they should be experts in stopping genocide and restoring order.
