Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

[TCBF]

"OTTAWA — Roméo Dallaire wants young Canadians to go out in the streets and promote international action to end what he calls a human catastrophe in Darfur.

The senator and retired general is promoting a Sunday rally in Toronto that he hopes will draw young people to activism on behalf of the beleaguered region of Sudan."

- Anyone showing up with a "Support Belgian Paratrooper Peacekeepers" sign?

 

[pronto]

Aw Poop! I warned you a few postings back - now you've made me (and a lot of others) haemorrhage from all our orifices... You made us think of Dallaire again... Arrrrrgh... must resist comment on bad,self-serving, smarmy, book.... Must resist urge to write note to senate
>

Edited 'cause I can't spell haemorrhage when ticked at Dallaire

 

[MarkOttawa]

The latest from the good Senator (full text not officially online):

History will judge Canada, not Sudan, on the fate of Darfur
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20060914.wxcodarfur14%2FBNStory%2FspecialComment%2Fhome&ord=11580757&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

...Canadians need to realize that a large part of Sudan's intransigence can be directly linked to our own government's unwillingness to accept leadership of a UN mission to Darfur.

Does the Senator really believe that Khartoum has given one moment's thought to Canada's willingness or not to lead a mission in Darfur?

One of the underlying justifications of Sudan's refusal to accept a UN mission is its professed fear that letting the United Nations in means letting the United States and other major powers into the area.

No it's not. The US and NATO have made it clear they will not put boots on the ground (they are rather pre-ocuppied elsewhere for one thing). What other major powers is the Senator dreaming about? He lists below some states that might be considered major powers as states that should contribute to a force; would not Sudan also reject these countries?

Canadian inaction enables the Sudanese to continue balking on this point.

Strange that I have seen no reporting anywhere in the international media about this grievous consequence of Canadian inaction.

It is not only the responsibility of the U.S. and other Security Council members to solve the crisis in Darfur. Their efforts to protect the millions of displaced and menaced people living in Darfur by passing Resolution 1706 have been commendable. It now falls to Canada, as a leader of the world's middle powers, to take charge of the mission, prepare for deployment of Canadian Forces and rally other middle powers -- such as Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, and the Scandinavian countries -- to commit the resources and troops needed to stop the slaughter.

So, now that the UNSC is stalemated by Khartoum's refusal to accept a UN force, Canada will just whistle up those middle powers, take command of their forces, and lead them in an invasion of Sudan. An invasion (if it ever happened but it won't) that would be resisted and likely lead to years of bloody insurgency. And all without specific UNSC authorization.

The Senator has also forgotten that the UN does not want troops from the countries he lists (except maybe India); it wants soldiers from African, South Asian and Islamic nations.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Centurian1985]

Unforunately, that link brings up... "The page you requested is only available to INSIDER Edition subscribers". 

(Note - Unfortunately, you can register but you only get 14 days access.  Yes I can subscribe to another magazine, but I have enough already thanks.)

To get to the point, is Canada actually the leader of the 'middle powers' or '2nd world nations'?  When did we get elected leader of the 'middle powers'? and, we got a great life here and we do a lot worldwide, but how does he justify that its our responsibilty as leader of the pack of 'middle powers'? 

 

[FSTO]

Any reporter worth his salt would go to google earth and see where the Darfur region of Sudan is situated. Then after they take in the terrain, closest ports and potential staging area in a neighbouring country (and find one who would allow the UN to set up there), they should ask these questions to the good senator. I am VERY interested to hear his answers.

 

[GUNS]

Canadian's are all shagged up, they want to pull us out of a country, that wants us there and send us to a country that don't want us there.

Got that comment from my favourite Mess bartender.

 

[pronto]

Arrrrgh. Canadians do NOT want us out of Afghanistan.

Journalists, intelligentsia, fellow-travellers, party apparatchiks, left-leaning, tree-hugging, granola-crunching, sandal-wearing, poncho-sporting wackos want us out of Afghanistan.

If we believe the silly surveys, preposterous polls - yes indeedy, that is the message we're to come away with. I have to be honest, though, GUNS, I have not met a single person in the past two months who wants us out! Seriously! two months worth of people!

(Of course, I proudly wear an artillery pin on my suit, or a year of the vet pin, or a little mortar, or a 100th anniversary of the Australian Army, but if they can't handle that, too bad!). So we all have to take a pill and not think the average Canadian wants us out.

 

[GUNS]

 

[Bigmac]

    As you all have heard the Prime Minister is pushing for UN involvement in Sudan. The CDS anounced recently that our military is tapped out due to our increased involvement in Afghanistan. Can we sustain the mission in Afghanistan and still send a significant amount of troops to Sudan with the UN? What is your opinion?

 

[2 Cdo]

No, we cannot sustain both. Therfore we should not venture anywhere near Dafur anytime soon.

 

[Bigmac]

      Which mission is more important? Fighting Taliban and trying to restore order and government in Afghanistan or preventing the systematic genocide of hundreds of thousands of people in Sudan? I believe our Prime Minister may already be formulating a plan for us to join the UN cause. Recent polls are not favorable for the government due to the loss of soldiers in Afghanistan. I am curious to see if our government will buckle to opinion polls?

 

[GAP]

Politically, the government may have to commit to a small support group (not including existing support group) if only to shut down the opposition.

 

[2 Cdo]

       Recent polls are not favorable for the government due to the loss of soldiers in Afghanistan.

As would the polls be IF we wandered into Darfur, and started to take casualties! Make no mistake, the situation there would almost guarentee that we would take casualties!

 

[KevinB]

Depends on what they want to do in Darfur.

Canada has 9 Inf BN's, 1 SOF "Group", 3 Armoured Regt and 3 Arty Reg.

The second line (TF2- and TF4-) of operations capability could theoretically take the role.-- That woudl then leave Canada open and have no reserve.

Plus it would be initiating a war of aggression in Sudan...

I would rather operate in Iraq...

 

[HItorMiss]

Sudan... OH HECK NO!

I6 says it better, but the fact remains until the UN is asked to intervene and the mission is mandated then anything we think of doing is an act of aggression against a sovereign nation.

 

[GAP]

We could always pull a NATO... pick a nice, safe cushy position, then refuse to get involved in the other nasty stuff.

 

[icatq]

The key problem is - we have no combat arms pers left. The army will struggle to do Afghanistan until 2009 (and beyond).

It's not that we wouldn't do Sudan, it's that we can't....and no amount of whining by a Liberal Senator will correct this.

Maybe if the Liberals had paid attention when they were in office we would be big enough to do this (oh, and have strat air lift to get there!).

 

[vonGarvin]

Canada has 9 Inf BN's, 1 SOF "Group", 3 Armoured Regt and 3 Arty Reg.
The second line (TF2- and TF4-) of operations capability could theoretically take the role.-- That woudl then leave Canada open and have no reserve.

That, unfortunately, is all theory.  The "Inf BN's" are nothing more than force generators for companies and TF HQs.  The SOF Group: unsure.  Arty and Armd regts (in reality, two Armd Recce Regt and one Tank Regt) are all maxed out.
THe second line of operations has recently been "modified", shall we say.  I don't have a link, I've only seen a hard copy (OT: How do I get a hyperlink to my desk without a web cam or scanner?)
BUT, in theory, if they were deployed, they would still be a company as "reserve" (yes, being VERY sarcastic).
Then there's the logistical and command support.
We have definately jumped the shark as an army. (Go to http://www.jumptheshark.com/ for more info on that one) Let's hoping someone stops the bleeding.  It seems as though it's going the right way, though...

 

[MarkOttawa]

A related post at The Torch:

Darfur: Liberal Senator says Canadian military are racist (Sept. 28)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/09/darfur-liberal-senator-says-canadian.html

See also this guest-post at Daimnation!:

Darfur update: AU force to be augmented (Sept. 26)
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007665.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[KevinB]

VG -- sorry it was more of a tongue in cheek responce.

I am aware of our paper strength versus actual. 

However when we deploy people its skewed anyway -- look at TF1-06 350 crunchies and 1700 watchers...

We could deploy a coy of reservists to Sudan on month long callouts - send a Div HQ and call it a comittment  :