Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

[KevinB]

Sen. Romeo Dallaire â “ a former general who is part of Canada's special advisory team on Sudan â “ praised the vehicles and said they would have helped greatly when he was leading the UN peacekeeping mission during the Rwandan genocide.

"Instead of running around in an open vehicle and potentially [being] totally at risk of being shot at ...these APCs will give them that protection," Dallaire told CBC News.

He predicted the extra sense of security would make the peacekeepers bolder in pursing their mandate.

The Grizzlies, which are armed with heavy and light machineguns, should be all in active use by January. It is costing the federal government $15.5 million to rent the cargo planes and it is expected to take about a month to move all of the vehicles, spare parts and ammunition into Sudan.

:  So this half baked moron is in favour of arming the tinpot dicators of the AU - but wants to ban former CF soldiers from doing private security contracts  ???  -- hmmm let me offer an opinion on which venture is more likley going to indiscrimately kill, rape, and maim...

:blotto:

 

[AmmoTech90]

My little bit of crystal ball gazing...

Posted on Army.ca, 21 Nov 2015 by Innocent Newb-

Captured Canadian Grizzly- In Sudan?

Hi I've just seen some pics of what looks like those old APCs we had in the 80s.  It was used crushing some riots in Sudan.  I was wondering if we had lost any in Rwanda or Eritrea?  Anyone know the story behind this.

Reply by Infanteer (posts 1,030,459)

Use the search function, this was discussed by AT90 in 2005

 

[Infanteer]

Reply by Infanteer (posts 1,030,459)

Your ball is a little off - I'm slated to be there next June....  :dontpanic:

 

[pbi]

I don't want to be negative about uor aid to a truly desperate situation, but we had a hell of a time keeping those vehicles on the road when they were in Canada, with fully equipped maintenance organizations and semi-reasonable access to the remaining stocks of spare parts. Short of cannibalization, I wonder how the AU force will keep these old things running. I hope we are not going to have an embarassing scene in a few weeks when the VOR rate goes through the ceiling, and AU turns to us to sort it out.

Cheers

 

[TCBF]

Then they better not break anything on a weekend, or their screwed!  ;D

Tom

 

[KevinB]

[cynic on]

You have to use them to have them fall apart[/cynic of]

Do we really expect the UA to do anything?  They have a hard time guarding food convoys let alone a "mechanized" infantry force.

More bang for our buck -- pay a PMC unit to do the mission  

 

[enfield]

we had a hell of a time keeping those vehicles on the road when they were in Canada, with fully equipped maintenance organizations and semi-reasonable access to the remaining stocks of spare parts. Short of cannibalization, I wonder how the AU force will keep these old things running.

Seems to describe most of the vehicles on the road in Africa, and likely most of their military fleets as well. Having seen the Bus Depot in Maputo, Mozambique, I have faith Africans can keep anything running.

I'm waiting to see Grizzlies start popping up (in various colours and with various changes) all over Africa. The Grizzlies can join the M16A1's, G3's, FN's, T-55's, GAZ jeeps, and MiG-21's that arm the continent. Old weapons don't fade away in Africa, they just get recyled.
Isn't Botswana flying our old fighters?

 

[old medic]

True enough:

http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/fighters/freedomfighter/index.php

The following aircraft were sold to Botswana:

705, 716, 719, 723, 727, 732, 734, 754, 764, 765, 784, 801, 802, 811, 829, 830

 

[pbi]

Seems to describe most of the vehicles on the road in Africa, and likely most of their military fleets as well. Having seen the Bus Depot in Maputo, Mozambique, I have faith Africans can keep anything running.

I'm waiting to see Grizzlies start popping up (in various colours and with various changes) all over Africa. The Grizzlies can join the M16A1's, G3's, FN's, T-55's, GAZ jeeps, and MiG-21's that arm the continent. Old weapons don't fade away in Africa, they just get recyled.
Isn't Botswana flying our old fighters?

Hmmmm.having been in Mozambique myself, I have to admit that you do have a point. But..."running" is one thing (with blue smoke spewing everywhere, parts tied on with wire, cardboard or wood replacing bodywork, and odd-sized tires, moving at 12kmh) and being a serviceable AFV is quite another. From what I saw in 93, a goodly part of that fleet of old "orphan" AFVs spends its time on blocks rusting away.

Cheers

 

[Blunt Object]

I was watching the news this morning and caught something about the African Union dicussing handing over peace keeping responsibilities in Darfur to the U.N.. If that what do you guys think the likely hood of Canadas involvement in it will be. I often hear discussions about us going to Africa next.

Any thoughts?

 

[Armymedic]

Sudan has repeatedly told the UN it does not want non african soldiers in its country, but they will take any money we are willing to give them....we won't be going there peacefully any time soon.

 

[sneak and peek soldier]

I agree with Armymedic.....if we go in there it wont be because they wanted us to it will be because we had to..

 

[BKells]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060408/canada_darfur_060408/20060408?hub=TopStories

Canada's Dallaire to review UN Darfur plan: CTV

Updated Sat. Apr. 8 2006 11:40 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The United Nations will soon ask Sen. Romeo Dallaire to review a peacekeeping plan for Darfur -- something that could mean deploying more Canadian troops there, CTV News has learned.

"It needs not developing country's troops, it needs developed countries troops," Dallaire, who witnessed the 1994 Rwandan genocide firsthand while commanding handcuffed UN troops, told CTV News about the Darfur situation.

"It needs troops from the northern countries, it needs troops from middle powers like Canada."

MPs from all parties gathered this week to express sadness and horror at the ongoing violence that has killed more than 200,000 people and created more than three million refugees.

"As we gather here in Ottawa, mass atrocity and impunity continue in Darfur," Liberal MP Irwin Cotler said.

They issued a call for action, and it's one that Prime Minister Stephen Harper may act on.

"We have given that some preliminary consideration. We haven't reached any final decision," Harper said.

"This obviously is something that would have to be worked out in concert with all of our allies including the United States and others."

Canada has about 50 soldiers in Darfur acting as advisors or otherwise providing support to African Union troops. In addition, Canada has sent about 100 armoured vehicles.

Dallaire thinks Canada can and should do more.

"Does it have enough depth now to handle another mission? My estimate is yes but it doesn't have any more room after that," he said.

The government has not yet asked military officials to plan for an increased presence in Sudan, but that could soon change.

The UN releases its Sudan action plan on April 24, and that plan will likely call for more peacekeepers.

"We welcome the initiative to develop a plan, that as on the 60th anniversary of the whole concept of peacekeeping which emerged right here from Canada, that Canada's prepared to move from 33rd place in participation to a more significant role," NDP Leader Jack Layton said Friday.

With a report from CTV's David Akin

 

[MG34]

IMHO,we should stay out of Africa entirely,that continent is a quagmire of nil returns.

 

[George Wallace]

"We welcome the initiative to develop a plan, that as on the 60th anniversary of the whole concept of peacekeeping which emerged right here from Canada, that Canada's prepared to move from 33rd place in participation to a more significant role," NDP Leader Jack Layton said Friday.

That is a rather interesting statement for Jack Layton to make.  He welcomes the initiative to develop a plan to move from 33rd place in participation to a more significant role, at the same time saying we shouldn't be in Afhanistan.  :clown: 

:argument:

 

[pbi]

I'm sure Jack is hoping that those nasty Americans will not be involved in Darfur, so our deployment will be morally acceptable to that crowd of knee-jerk anti-Ameicans who seem to form a large part of his constituency. I wonder how Jack and his friends will deal with the first time Canadian troops blow away some of the predatory types who are causing the problems there. But, I suppose that the bright side of this is that even the NDP has come to learn that the employment of armed forces is a legitimate and important part of a country's foreign policy and its status in the world.

Cheers

 

[geo]

Jack is not a member of the party in Power..... he can bloody well say whatever he wants. He does not have to back up anything he thinks or says...... NDP will forever be all over the place.

 

[tomahawk6]

Blackwater offered to send a brigade of peacekeepers to Darfur at a Special Ops Conference. Excerpt:

"Amman, Jordan — J. Cofer Black, vice chairman of private security firm Blackwater USA, astonished Special Forces representatives gathered here from around the world with a proposal to use his company as an army for hire.

“It’s an intriguing, good idea from a practical standpoint, because we’re low-cost and fast,” he said March 27 during the 2006 Special Operations Forces Exhibition and Conference. “The issue is, who’s going to let us play on their team?”

Black said he struck upon the idea about a year ago after watching several populations suffer because no one was willing to go in and help. He used the Sudan as an example.

“About a year ago, we realized we could do it,” he said. “I just got tired of watching people not really do anything. It’s heartbreaking.” "

 

[MarkOttawa]

The Globe's Norman Spector in his column today writes:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/globe234.htm

"...They [MPs] will no doubt press the government on the amount of time we will be in Afghanistan; the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, has raised the possibility that it could be as long as 10 years, and other estimates go as high as 14. And parliamentarians will want to know whether Ottawa has an exit strategy; that is, how the government will know when Canadian troops have accomplished their mission...

This evening's debate will also provide an opportunity for Parliament to examine the exact nature of Canada's national interests in Afghanistan. If, on the other hand, we're there for humanitarian reasons, MPs will be able to raise another conflict calling out for international attention, in Darfur province of western Sudan, where many believe genocide is occurring..."

For all those demanding that Canada "do something" in Darfur, surely the questions about the duration of a mission and an exist strategy are at least as relevant to Darfur as they are to Afstan. And equally hard to answer.

He also quotes on his website from a Washington Post story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900957.html?referrer=email

"The Bush administration has settled on the idea of sending up to several hundred NATO advisers to help bolster African Union peacekeeping troops in their efforts to shield villagers in Sudan's Darfur region from fighting between government-backed Arab militias and rebel groups, administration officials said...

The proposal, which still faces uncertain approval within NATO because of concerns that it could be a distraction from operations in Afghanistan, falls well short of more aggressive measures that some have advocated, such as sending ground combat troops or providing air patrols to protect peacekeepers and prevent the bombing of villages. These options have been ruled out as unnecessary at this time, an administration official said..."

Now this seems to me like the evil Bush trying to suck NATO members (including Canada if our do-gooders have their way) into a quagmire without UN Security Council approval (China and Russia are unlikely to approve any effective action in Darfur) and against the will of the government of Sudan (which almost certainly would oppose any NATO presence).

Moreover, as the Globe's John Ibbitson pointed out in a piece April 7 (full text not online):
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20060407.IBBITSON07%2FTPStory%2FNational%2Fcolumnists&ord=3745032&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

"People who know the region well [Jan Pronk, the UN's leading envoy to Sudan], warn that imposing a European or American intervention force will only unite all factions in opposition to the intruders and spawn a new swarm of jihadists."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/02/wsudan02.xml&site=5

Sounds like intervention (even if only in a support role) might just make matters worse and lead to an increase in terrorism (just as those opposed to the interventions in Iraq and Afstan say has happened in those countries as part of their reason for opposing the Western military operations there).

Surely in these circumstances the conclusion must be, for those opposed to--or even questioning--our mission in Afstan, that any substantial Canadian military mission to Darfur would be madness.

But somehow I doubt that conclusion will be reached by our chattering classes since Canadian foreign policy debate is conducted not on any rational basis but rather simply on the basis of emotion (bleeding heartism often combined with anti-Americanism) and partisanship. Arguments which are raised in one case are not even mentioned in a potential parallel one.

Mindless.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

Many thoughtful, respected, even eminent Canadians have spoken out in favour of, at last, a Canadian parliamentary debate to consider what to do about Sudan’s Darfur region.  Several politicians have joined in.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan pleads with the world – although, in reality his pleas are aimed at the US led ‘West’ and China – to do something (anything) to try to ensure that Darfur does not become “another Rwanda.”  In a recent Globe and Mail opinion piece  (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060410.CORWANDA10/TPStory/?query=caplan) Canadian public intellectual Gerald Caplan says:

Twelve years after perhaps a million defenceless Rwandans were slaughtered for the sin of being Tutsi, Rwanda's genocide has at last become widely known. As people around the world commemorated the recent anniversary, the phrase "Another Rwanda" joins the wildly ignored "Never Again!" to reflect the world's apparent abhorrence of genocide -- the ultimate crime of crimes. Anyone who thinks this augurs well for the future of humankind is dead wrong.

And

Yet, three years after the Darfur crisis erupted, the world's reaction remains pitiful. The all-powerful permanent members of the UN Security Council -- China, Russia, the U.S., France and Britain -- have perfectly good reasons of crass self-interest to allow hundreds of thousands of Darfurians to die, countless women to be raped, millions forced to flee to squalid camps.

Three years after it exploded, the situation in Darfur continues to deteriorate drastically. "Another Rwanda," indeed.

What are the real lessons of Rwanda and Darfur? They are surely inescapable. Those of us who demand interventions on humanitarian grounds -- in Rwanda, Darfur, northern Uganda -- will continue to be ignored. When Western powers do intervene, we can be sure that dubious geopolitical and hegemonic interests are the driving force. We'll have many more Rwandas. We can count on it.

Senator (LGen (Ret’d)) Romeo Dallaire suggests that Canada should and can send troops to Darfur under a new, improved UN mandate.

As others have pointed out here in Army.ca (see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42028/post-364349.html#msg364349 ), much of our operational manning problem lies in some CSS elements – many scarce, skilled technical experts are needed just to sustain the current operations.  Those are exactly the people most needed by the UN (or anyone else) to mount and conduct successful operations in Darfur.

I think Caplan is right when he talks about Western (and Chinese) perfectly good reasons to avoid Darfur:

1. The American led West is, for the most part, tied up – militarily and diplomatically – in the Middle East and (much more importantly) Central Asia;

2. China has its own perfectly good reasons to oppose any UN or UN sanctioned actions in Sudan; and

The “solution” to Darfur is, most likely, a general war (of conquest) in Sudan.  The Darfur problem is a domestic matter for Sudan and I, personally, cannot see a “solution” which does not require a new government in Khartoum.  I’m not sure that Canadians would or should support regime change for Sudan any more that they did (or should) support regime change in Iraq.  I’m not sure Spain or Italy or Singapore or New Zealand or any other OEDC nation would be willing (and able) to sign on to any UN sanctioned mission in Sudan which had any realistic prospect of success.

I agree that our Parliament should debate Sudan, and Africa in general, as part of a thorough, public review of our foreign policy.  I think our Parliament should conclude that the Responsibility to Protect doctrine advanced and championed by Canada is ill considered and too dangerous to implement - because it is ill considered and, therefore, 99.99% to obey the law of unintended consequences.