Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

[warrickdll]

Perhaps, on the off chance that non-AU forces would be authorized, the government has been considering the 6 pack and the Griffons for this (it seems increasingly difficult politically to send them to Afghanistan)?

It would have a lower casualty risk but high exposure. An aircraft solution would put more Air Force commanders overseas and wouldn't lean much on Army resources.

In short, if called upon (big if), we could contribute visible high quality units, and not affect current operations in Afghanistan. Not affect except logistically, fiscally, and... well okay - maybe it would take a lot of effort. But not an impossibility.

 

[vonGarvin]

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  :

LOL...that's ok.  I just posted in case anyone thought you were being serious

I know about deployments.  All fat, no lean.

As that burger king lady said "where's the beef?"

 

[HItorMiss]

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

Oh god please don't get their hopes up like that it's just cruel to tease. And you know somewhere down the line we'll hear the " Hey I just heard somewhere that the CF was going to do a all Res Tour to the Sudan anyone know how I can get on it? see we told you were just as good!"

No I don't mean the avg Reservist but you all know the type.

 

[Journeyman]

all Res Tour to the Sudan

Oh man, that could sort out so many issues  >  ....er, cut it out!  Keep it on track, dammit. 

 

[geo]

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...

Infidel,
while I know you've already qualified your answer......
They've already started tapping into TF 4/06, providing an Inf coy as augmentation to 3/07 ..... plus the sqn of Leos & support troops.......

stretch, and stretch some more

Chimo!

 

[TCBF]

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

- That is because we are war-fighting with a peacetime career system.  Here is how we free up people:

1.  Move all trades to an 'operational merit list.'
2.  Follow a similar to the  US system of 1 tour 'over there', then one year at home where required.
3.  Promote those who do tours - no 'in the window' for those who do not deploy.
4.  Cut the peacetime 'fat' from our establishment and convert those PYs into hard field positions.
5.  DAG all pers twicw a year.  Blow a DAG your hold your merit list for 6 mos.  Blow two DAGs in a row and 'toured' pers get to pass by you.
6.  Compete for postings: those just off tour can say "I want to go THERE" and bounce out someone who is unfit or dagged Red.
7. If a single person of your trade and rank has not 'toured' since you have, they either tour next, or drop out of the merit list.  Promote combat experience ONLY.

Reward operational service at the expense of the office-working 'chosen ones.'

 

[2 Cdo]

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

- That is because we are war-fighting with a peacetime career system.  Here is how we free up people:

1.  Move all trades to an 'operational merit list.'
2.  Follow a similar to the  US system of 1 tour 'over there', then one year at home where required.
3.  Promote those who do tours - no 'in the window' for those who do not deploy.
4.  Cut the peacetime 'fat' from our establishment and convert those PYs into hard field positions.
5.  DAG all pers twicw a year.  Blow a DAG your hold your merit list for 6 mos.  Blow two DAGs in a row and 'toured' pers get to pass by you.
6.  Compete for postings: those just off tour can say "I want to go THERE" and bounce out someone who is unfit or dagged Red.
7. If a single person of your trade and rank has not 'toured' since you have, they either tour next, or drop out of the merit list.  Promote combat experience ONLY.

Reward operational service at the expense of the office-working 'chosen ones.'

While I agree in principle with rewarding those who deploy versus those who knowingly avoid overseas deployment, what is your plan for those who are in non-deployable positions, ie. instructors and those who are medically broken? It seems that if we start punishing all who don't deploy we might run into problems getting anyone to work for the schools in the CF!

 

[geo]

The problem I would have with Sudan is that the Gov't of Sudan doesn't support the concept of a UN force there in the 1st place............ and only grudgingly tolerate the AU troops that are there.

Having our troops anywhere near there without a clear mandate is just going off half cocked and just looking for trouble.

 

[vonGarvin]

I don't think he's advocating punishing those in the training system as instructors, after all, they are the ones who "pump out" the soldiers who deploy.  Can't have "junk" producing soldiers, lest we get get junk "out there".

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I stumbled upon this from a couple of days ago - written by a couple of "activists"...  My emphasis added:

Canada must lead in Darfur
 
Ben Fine and Josh Scheinert
National Post


Monday, September 18, 2006


On August 31, the United Nations moved one step closer to bringing about an end to the crisis in Darfur, Sudan. It passed Security Council Resolution 1706, calling for up to 20,600 troops and police to help stabilize the troubled region and protect its vulnerable civilians.

To make this protection a reality Canada will have to answer the call.

Currently, violence in Darfur continues, displacing and uprooting thousands of innocents. There are 3.6 million Darfurians dependent on aid, which is at its lowest amount since the conflict began, due to a lack of funding and security. The number of weak and unprotected people increases every day. But the UN resolution has given us an opportunity to step in. It is time for Canada to offer troops and resources -- to do more, in other words, than making ephemeral statements outlining our concern for the people in Darfur.

Resolution 1706 refers to Sudan's "responsibility to protect" its civilians, a Canadian diplomatic initiative adopted by the UN's General Assembly one year ago. Given that Sudan has manifestly failed to protect its population from ethnic cleansing, the resolution rightfully "invites" the Sudanese government to consent to the troop deployment, rather than requiring it.

The success of the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) deployment to Darfur depends on military and diplomatic leadership. Troops and resources from developed nations are vital if UNMIS is to fulfill its ambitious mandate. Diplomatically, the mission requires the leadership of nations other than Great Britain and the United States, both of which are militarily tied down elsewhere.

Enter Canada. A recently publicized report states that in addition to the troops in Afghanistan, the Canadian military has a 1,200-strong task force reserved for international crises such as Darfur. As well, Canada could supply a squadron of CF-18 fighter jets (12-18 aircraft) and the appropriate support and logistics elements in order to ground Sudanese aircraft, preventing attacks on civilians.

What is more, we have the world behind us. Nations from around the world have grown impatient with Sudan's constant rejection of the need for an international protection force in Darfur. Sweden and Norway are prepared to contribute. African nations are already there; Asian troops are in south Sudan. All that's missing is a credible leader.
We have the resources. We have the allies. The question thus becomes, do we have the will to lead? Canadian citizens do. Yesterday, "Global Day for Darfur" rallies were held around the world, and Canadians gathered in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal and Halifax to call for Canadian leadership in Darfur.

There is, therefore, no more fitting time than now for the Government of Canada to take the lead in bringing about an end to an awful humanitarian crisis. This is the moment for Canada to prove itself and its ideals to the people of Darfur, to the international community and, most importantly, to us -- Canadians at home who know our country can and should be doing more.

- Ben Fine, the executive director of STAND (Students Taking Action Now: Darfur) Canada is a student in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto. Josh Scheinert, STAND Canada's communications director, is a student at Osgoode Hall Law School.

So, these two - who would more than likely oppose our operations in Afghanistan - are calling for Canada to invade Sudan? Unilaterally if required...?  Do they not have one brain cell between them?  Bloody hell...  :

 

[Teflon]

Why do so many people who oppose our so called "illegal occupation" of Afghanistan at the request of the Afghan government keep screaming that we against the wishes of the Sudan government sent troops (ie:invade) Sudan?

 

[2 Cdo]

Teflon, because they are ignorant and stupid!

 

[Yrys]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5390974.stm

UN 'must drop' Darfur peace force

Top UN officials say the world body must abandon efforts
to pressure Sudan to accept UN peacekeepers in Darfur.

UN Sudan envoy Jan Pronk says the existing African Union
force should instead be strengthened.

 

[geo]

Enpowering the only show in town is the ONLY angle that currently makes sense.

Though I do not keep my hopes high that they will come to anything constructive.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Some in US promote an air campaign, as in Kosovo:

We Saved Europeans. Why Not Africans?
By Susan E. Rice, Anthony Lake and Donald M. Payne
Monday, October 2, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/01/AR2006100100871.html

...
After swift diplomatic consultations, the United States should press for a U.N. resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum: accept unconditional deployment of the U.N. force within one week or face military consequences. The resolution would authorize enforcement by U.N. member states, collectively or individually. International military pressure would continue until Sudan relented.

The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan's oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would deploy -- by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing.

If the United States fails to gain U.N. support, we should act without it. Impossible? No, the United States acted without U.N. blessing in 1999 in Kosovo to confront a lesser humanitarian crisis (perhaps 10,000 killed) and a more formidable adversary. Under NATO auspices, it bombed Serbian targets until Slobodan Milosevic acquiesced. Not a single American died in combat. Many nations protested that the United States violated international law, but the United Nations subsequently deployed a mission to administer Kosovo and effectively blessed NATO military action retroactively...

Susan E. Rice, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was assistant secretary of state for African affairs from 1997 to 2001. Anthony Lake, a professor at Georgetown University, was national security adviser from 1993 to 1997. Donald M. Payne is a Democratic representative from New Jersey.

Note the authors are all Democrats, advocating war.  Of course no UN military mission deployed to Kosovo--it was NATO's KFOR.  Odd mistake for such people to make.  KFOR is still there; I wonder why all those Canadian politicians who demand an "exit strategy" for Afstan did not demand one when Canadian troops joined KFOR?  The strategy was eventually just to remove them when we felt we had done enough and let others continue doing the job.
http://www.nato.int/kfor/
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Operations/quadrant_e.asp

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Blackadder1916]

Bush Says U.N. Should Not Wait On Darfur 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_sudan_darfur_2;_ylt=As1w2IqicnzJJRtZSFoMS9YGw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

October 2, 2006 (AP)
President Bush said Monday the United Nations should send a peacekeeping force to the troubled Darfur region of Sudan as soon as possible without further delay.

"The United Nations can play an important role in helping us achieve our objective, which is to end human suffering and deprivation," Bush said as he dispatched special envoy Andrew Natsios to the region. "In my view, the United Nations should not wait any longer ... ."

The Sudanese government has thus far resisted mounting international pressure to accept a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur. Bush contends the U.N. should deploy such a force anyway.

Natsios said he had been going to Sudan for 17 years and "I know leaders in all regions of the country and I'm going to use those contacts and that history to move this process along."

"I think what our objective is, is not just to have a temporary fix for two months, but to try to deal with the root causes of this so we don't have another fourth war in five years, should we end this one successfully," Natsios said in an Oval Office session with Bush and reporters.

More noisemaking in advance of the mid-term elections or do they actually think they effect change without having to provide resources?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well if the Francophones can have Romania, Egypt, Thailand, etc in it, then just get various nations to agree to go, have them join the AU as observer nations and viola! You have a robust AU force, then you tell Sudan to go piss up a rope.  ;D

 

[a_majoor]

Part of that has to do with domestic politics. The Democrats insist that only the UN has the authority to take actions like intervening in Dafur, OIF, liberating Afghanistan etc.

OF course, anyone who actually takes the time to be informed will know what the actual record of the UN is in this and so many other cases. I think the thrust here is to give the UN yet another public humiliation (i.e. they can hardly organize a coffee break, much less rescue people suffering from Genocide) which the American public will see and say WTF? to the Democrats. This also defangs the arguments that the "UN could have" arguments for all but the most completely tinfoil protected.

OF course, should the UN actually get off it's collective ass, then there will be some real hope for that organization. Recent events suggest it is a spent force, who's time has passed, however.

 

[Kirkhill]

Its all good.


If the other guy doesn't go to war - we would have.
If the other guy goes to war - we wouldn't have.
If the other guy goes to war - we would have gone to war someplace else.
If the other guy goes to war - we would have done it differently.
If the other guy goes to war - we would have done it faster
If the other guy goes to war - we would have done it cheaper
If the other guy goes to war - we would have killed fewer civilians
If the other guy goes to war - we would have made fewer enemies.

Behold the nature of political discourse and pass the vomit bucket.

 

[MarkOttawa]

a_majoor: The Democratic authors of the Washington Post piece above are advocating that the US take military action without UN Security Council authorization, if necessary.  As the Clinton and Chretien governments (with others) did in Kosovo.

Mark
Ottawa