Darfur: A Solution?

[TheMason]

I was reading Niall Ferguson's new book The War of the World: 20th Century Conflict and the Descent of the West and in the introduction he makes the pithy observation that the difference between Genocide and Civil Wars is that one side does not posses arms.

This got me thinking about Darfur and the past genocides the US/UN has attempted to stop with varying amounts of failure. Then I remembered that when Yugoslavia dissolved in the 1990s the problem was that the Serbs kept control of the Army's weapons and used them against the relatively unarmed Kosovar muslims. Now NATO stepped in and was able to end the bloodshed. However, we mostly provided air power and military aid to the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) who did all the fighting on the ground.

So would it not make sense for the US if we want to stop the genocide to help arm the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit ethnic groups with AK-47s and other military hardware? I think this would strike more fear in the Janjaweed than the USMC since these groups would not have the LOAC (Law Of Armed Conflict) constraints the US military has.

Just some thoughts...well informed opinions please?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 11/13/06 05:42 PM, TheMason wrote:

Just some thoughts...well informed opinions please?

I don't really think that using an example from Bosnia/Kosovo is a really good example, as instead of a genocide, the area will verge into a cival war.

If your going to help, you may as welll do as much as you can to at least defuse the situation.

[TheMason]

At 11/13/06 05:56 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 11/13/06 05:42 PM, TheMason wrote:

Just some thoughts...well informed opinions please?

I don't really think that using an example from Bosnia/Kosovo is a really good example, as instead of a genocide, the area will verge into a cival war.

Why not they are/were both genocides, until the Kosovars got armed and international assistance? Since the only difference between genocide and civil war is a disproportion of arms; wouldn't it follow that civil war is preferable to genocide? A civil war may actually make the situation better when it comes to genocides.

If your going to help, you may as welll do as much as you can to at least defuse the situation.

But sometimes isn't less more? I mean we could help with CAS (close air support), but as Somalia shows (a regional example) sometimes the full might of a modern or outside military just causes more trouble than its worth.

Also look at Afghanistan in the 1980s, primative warriors were able to defeat a superpower. Where we dropped the ball is the US hasn't been good at winning the peace since WWII (maybe Korea) so we would have to employ "soft power" once the two (or four) sides come to a resolution.

[Istentelen]

It doesn't stop the genocide if both side has weapons, the difference will be that they'll happen from both side. That happend in Yugoslavia too. (It wasn't just Kosovo, there were big conflicts before that too.) Only in Israel have all the civilians weapons and gun training. In the other places the civilians only suffer in a war, no matter who's side how many weapons has.

[Neoptolemus]

At 11/13/06 06:05 PM, TheMason wrote:

Why not they are/were both genocides, until the Kosovars got armed and international assistance? Since the only difference between genocide and civil war is a disproportion of arms; wouldn't it follow that civil war is preferable to genocide? A civil war may actually make the situation better when it comes to genocides.

As regards to a civil war making things better.. i'm not sure.. On one hand you're giving the oppressed the means to defend themselves but it could lead to a worse situation where there is major conflict and more people die.. Or the oppressed become the oppressors. It is ultimately very complex.. The best bet is to send in a force to stop the oppressors without arming the oppressed.

But sometimes isn't less more? I mean we could help with CAS (close air support), but as Somalia shows (a regional example) sometimes the full might of a modern or outside military just causes more trouble than its worth.

Exactly, bring more weaponry to fight and it turns into a slaughter.

Also look at Afghanistan in the 1980s, primative warriors were able to defeat a superpower.

Wasn't those Afghani's that were helped by the US to stop communism trained by the CIA and inevitably form the Taliban.

[TheMason]

At 11/13/06 06:17 PM, neoptolemus wrote:

At 11/13/06 06:05 PM, TheMason wrote: Also look at Afghanistan in the 1980s, primative warriors were able to defeat a superpower.

Wasn't those Afghani's that were helped by the US to stop communism trained by the CIA and inevitably form the Taliban.

The CIA in Afghanistan didn't train anyone. What the CIA did was funnel money to the Pakistani government who used it to train extremists in their conflict with India over Kashmir. See the US intelligence agencies were kindof negligent in the late 1970s and 1980s. We trusted them with the money, but with very little oversight. The Pakistanis showed CIA operatives one group that was grateful to an extent for the US aid. However, a smaller group was being trained in radical Islamist thought and this smaller, clandestine group became the Taliban.

[Imperator]

Wasn't those Afghani's that were helped by the US to stop communism trained by the CIA and inevitably form the Taliban.

Amazing how that came back to bite us in the ass, eh?

Arming both sides isn't too great of an idea, Rwanda shows that. Both sides had an armed branch, which actually spurned the genocide in the first place. But the keynote was that it was mainly a local action. There were no concentration camps, no national arm to carry out executions, no official lists of genocidiaries and victims. It was the average Hutu who were slaughtering Tutsi.

Yes, the government sponsored and even encouraged the genocide, but it was the civilian population that carried out the massacre.

I'm not gonna claim expertise on Darfur, but my understanding, rudimentary as it is, is that it is a government branch (military) that is perpetuating the violence.

That means that the main proponent is a political organization backed with guns. Hence, a display of power (USMC) will better diffuse the situation (just as the Holocaust, arming the Jews would not have helped).

[lapis]

Darfurian rebels already receive some support, the SLM/A is backed by Eritrea and the JEM is said to have received support form Chad. I don't see moral objections against Wetsern nations supplying the rebels with arms since China is suppyling the Sudanese government with weapons but agreeing to aid a side in a conflict involves a commitment and this plan could easily backfire. If the violence doesn't stop, and I doubt that the Sudanese will easily be pushed into submission since they're hardly reliant on Western aid (if I'm not mistaken there's still a US trade embrago against them in place) and since they have Chinese support in the form of arms sales and oil exports, the West will be permanently mired in an unstable region and if the West pulls out their reputation will be tainted with the abandonment of another party they'd vowed to aid.

Now I'm all for putting as much diplomatic and economic pressure on Sudan as possible but I doubt that giving rebels military support serves anyone's interests. I'm not sure what the JEM and SLM/A will develop into and I hate the idea of supporting a future Taliban. This is primarily an African regional conflict and foreign incursions in these matters don't have the reputation of letting the prospects of the locals take a turn for the better.

[TheMason]

At 11/13/06 06:15 PM, Istentelen wrote: It doesn't stop the genocide if both side has weapons, the difference will be that they'll happen from both side. That happend in Yugoslavia too. (It wasn't just Kosovo, there were big conflicts before that too.) Only in Israel have all the civilians weapons and gun training. In the other places the civilians only suffer in a war, no matter who's side how many weapons has.

Israel is a bad example because there is a significantly underarmed civilian population that is oppressed. They're called Palestinians.

Guess what, we are talking about an uncivilizied part of the world where they hack unarmed women and children to death with machetes after raping them. The civilians are already suffering, perhaps even worse since their oppressors can abuse them at will without threat of resistance or international intervention (the latter has proven to be a colassal failure in this part of the world). The sad fact is a civil war might be an improvement for the oppressed of Darfur.

[Istentelen]

I know that they alredy suffering, I just don't think it would be the best idea to arm them, because then they might do the same things from the ethinic of their (former?) oppressors. But of course they would do these pogroms on the civilians, not the soldiers!
But also I can't guess what would be the ultimate solution here. Maybe because there isn't one.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 11/13/06 06:31 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/13/06 06:15 PM, Istentelen wrote:

The sad fact is a civil war might be an improvement for the oppressed of Darfur.

Maybe, maybe not.

It all depends on the people fighting and what type of quality/culture they are.

Look at most Cival Wars that have happened in the history of the world, very few of them have turned out to be anywhere sucessfull, and few of the leaders of these wars knew when to stop fighting and start using peace.

Why do you think that the US Cival War, in comparison, was ( in comparison) ended sooner, with a lesser causality count and that eventually later benifited the country.

The people that lead it.

The most I could advocate to this would at least be to know who the leaders are and thier qualities.

To know something before we go in. We've seen many Cival Wars( aided by the US) go wrong down the line.

[Draik50th]

There was a solution and that was to send a private mercanary group to stop the war there.

It worked, they were actually able to get them to stop killing each other for a short period time (couple months I recall) before the UN disbanded them, (they either didn't want to pay them or the stigma with using a PMC in a country was too great). Unfortunately the UN's "force" has been completely uneffective to solve the problem, as expected. They also won't let any other country join in to end it (neither would they want too).

The Somalian conflict was a loss for the whole continent of Africa, after that no sane country ever wants to go in there again, to either: A. Help them out militarily, B. Keep them from killing each other. I mean you have better luck surviving going into Hell and back then getting out of the many war-torn countries in 1 piece.

It is definetly known that prior to the US going into Somalia, all the people there had been trained by Al-Qaeda's terror network and they knew exactly when the Americans were gonna strike and where. He also supplied a great deal of arms to them to stop the US. If the enemy knows what you're gonna do, before you do it, you're kind of screwed.

Sure the US could've made all of Somalia's militants a smoking crataer if given enough time and stabilize/create a new government, but Clinton decided to retreat and leave them for themselves.

The US hasn't even stepped up to the plate with its own CAS in Iraq or Afghanistan after the initial assault. If we did this the terrorists ability to seize a city or anything would be impossible as you could just BLOW up the incoming terrorists on their cars or level their HQ's. I know it has to be some kind of shitty UN bill that amounts to "you cannot use CAS" or something.

I wish wars were that simple, drop a lotta bombs and win. Perfectly good solution if you want no one living after that. CAS needs a lot of ground coordination which can only be done by a few countries effectively and a lot of jets, bombs...

[SirXVII]

Last time we funded conflicts like this it came back and bit us in the face.

[peroo]

Maybe the U.N could do something rather then just send in troops that are not allowed to shoot. That's just my opinion, but I don't think they are going to stop killing just because the U.N said so.

[Bolo]

Essay I wrote yesterday on just this subject:

"Darfur…the name alone evokes a sort of foreboding, almost a sense of something that isn’t quite right in the world. However, most people in the world would be hard-pressed to tell you exactly where Darfur is, let alone what is currently happening there, right under the selective eyesight of the international community. Most people have no idea that Darfur is widely considered the worlds most neglected and severe genocide. Most people have not been clued in to the fact that it has been going on for over three years. And most have not been told that the current death toll in the province of Darfur stands somewhere between 200,000-400,000. Let’s rectify this unfortunate lack of information provided to us by the media, and examine the facts on this depressing and disturbing state of affairs.

First off, Darfur is a province located on the western plains of Sudan, in Northern Africa. An otherwise unremarkable stretch of desert and Sahel on the edge of the great Sahara Desert, Darfur is now stained red with the blood of innocent villagers.

The conflict’s roots extend far beyond the year 2003, when the fighting broke out officially, however. In 1983, an Islamic dictator came to power in Sudan, and began to institute a set of archaic Muslim laws, known as Shari’a, into effect. These laws were particularly harsh penal codes for criminals, and the heavily Muslim northern Sudan had little trouble following them. The heavily Christian southern Sudan, however, did not feel an obligation to abide by these conflicting religious laws, and thus, began to rebel against the north. A bloody 20-year civil war followed, in which an estimated 2 million Sudanese were killed. Darfur, however, remained peaceful during this time.

It was only in the year 2003, when the civil war ended that the genocidal plans began to take shape. The Darfurians in the west had experienced many years of oppression from the Arabic government that had instituted the Islamic laws back in 1983, and decided that since the south had won its battle for rights in the government, Darfur might be able the fight for its rights in the government. So in February of 2003, the Darfur rebels seized the capital city of their France-sized province, and essentially held it hostage until they earned rights with the government. This insurgency against the power in the capital of Sudan — Khartoum — disturbed the Arab officials greatly, and they sought to quell the resistance quickly, with violence. Soon, the government began strafing villages and bombing settlements in the impoverished farmland, as well as sending out armed mercenaries, or Janjaweed, to kill Darfurians en masse.

And thus, the killing began. 500 people killed a day. 7 days a week. 15,000 killed per month. Perhaps 400,000 killed total. 2 ½ million displaced from their homes. 80% of children involved are malnourished. Aid can only reach 20%. 1 million could die by the end. The numbers are staggering, to say the least. Staggering, and yet somehow familiar… Flash back to 1994, and another impoverished African nation: Rwanda. Ethnic boundaries similar to those experienced by the Darfurians and Arabs occurred 12 years ago between two factions in this country: the Hutu and the Tutsi. You may or may not remember this conflict as; sadly, the media largely neglected its significance, much in the same way that it is now neglecting Darfur’s. In the Rwanda conflict, 400,000 died. Is there some sort of gruesome pattern beginning to form? A vicious cycle of genocide followed by genocide followed by genocide, all forgotten by those responsible for keeping the world safe?

With the recent expulsion of a top UN diplomat from Darfur, the international presence in Darfur has begun to recede, and the genocidal government of Sudan has begun to spread its icy tendrils into the heart of neighboring nations like the Central African Republic, and Chad, both of which have taken in refugees from Darfur. Now these two corresponding nations have begun to fall into the trap of dissent and revolution, and soon, we may see the rise of an anarchic state in this region, the likes of which has never been seen before. What can we do to prevent the eventual collapse of this tri-country area? Establish a UN presence.
The United Nations has remained infamously inactive in the prevention of this conflict, due to the steadfast resistance from apparently corrupt Sudanese president Omar el-Bashir. The president is worried that if the UN established a presence, it would take into custody government officials, who could be tried as war criminals under the Geneva Convention. In order to circumvent this, I believe that the United States and the UN should set a timetable for UN intervention in the genocide, at which point if el-Bashir’s government has not stopped the genocide, the UN will storm the country with 20,000 troops under an intervention resolution, and restore peace to the region by force. There is no other way that we could gain the attention of the corrupt Sudanese government; sanctions have been in place for years, and seem to be having little effect, and international pressure seems to be useless to stop the genocide. What we need to do now is take the next logical step to stop this massacre: a show of force.

What would we stand to lose from such a show of force? The respect of the entire Islamic community, for one thing. Although, perhaps we have already lost it through the military measures taken in Iraq over the past few years. It seems to me that the benefits of an invasion would far outweigh the detrimental effects: A few countries hating our guts, or a few million people dead.

I’ve made my choice. How about you?"

[TheMason]

Talcum,

Good essay however I just wanted to comment on two things:

As I understand it the situation in Darfur is between two-four different Islamic groups who come from different tribes. Your essay leaves the reader with the impression that it is Muslim on Christian genocide. If it is Islam on Islam how does that affect your statements on how intervention would impact our relations with the Muslim world?

Also from a military perspective how do you arrive at a force of 20,000 troops? What military reasoning? Or is it political reasoning? I think this number is too low. Whose troops would make-up this force? I would like to see the proponents of military intervention provide a more detailed plan of how to accomplish our goals of stopping the Genocide instead of "send in the Marines" or "send in a force made up of X# of troops".

[bradford1]

At 11/13/06 05:42 PM, TheMason wrote:

So would it not make sense for the US if we want to stop the genocide to help arm the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit ethnic groups with AK-47s and other military hardware? I think this would strike more fear in the Janjaweed than the USMC since these groups would not have the LOAC (Law Of Armed Conflict) constraints the US military has.

Just some thoughts...well informed opinions please?

No it would not make sense:

1.) If we arm the Zaghawa and Fur, it'll prolong the war. Can't we try to work out the situation peaceably to spare more lives? I think they've gone thru enough. We could always sanction Sudan until progress is made.

2.) Two wrongs do not make a right. If we arm rebels against the Janjaweed to merely bypass the LOAC, won't that indirectly violate it? I'm morally against it, as more atrocities and war simply will not fix Darfur.

[TheMason]

At 11/15/06 01:11 AM, bradford1 wrote:

At 11/13/06 05:42 PM, TheMason wrote:

No it would not make sense:

1.) If we arm the Zaghawa and Fur, it'll prolong the war. Can't we try to work out the situation peaceably to spare more lives? I think they've gone thru enough. We could always sanction Sudan until progress is made.

Sanctions have proved so effective in the past. Furthermore, there is debate in the intl community as to whether or not sancitons are a violation of human rights and possible crimes against humanity. The reason is they often hurt civilians rather than political and military elites; and produce little of the desired effect.

2.) Two wrongs do not make a right. If we arm rebels against the Janjaweed to merely bypass the LOAC, won't that indirectly violate it? I'm morally against it, as more atrocities and war simply will not fix Darfur.

The point is the Janjaweed will be facing an enemy that fights more on their level and that instills fear, fear that can be used to bring them to the bargaining table. The US military, precisely because of LOAC (as well as any Western force) will not be that intimidating to the Janjaweed who'll just have women and children sit on their shooters with the knowledge that US servicemen will take fire and not return it if it endangers unarmed women and children.

Look Bradford, this is a war there and a particularly bloody war that makes no sense whatsoever to the Western mind and sensibilities. Sanctions will not work and negotiations by the West and an unarmed populace will not work. Diplomacy is about power, why would the Janjaweed bother with diplomacy when they can so easily win what they want?

I know it is repugnant, and I hold my nose as I suggest it but the simple fact is our choice is continued genocide or give the victims the means to resist. At least then the death toll may stop ticking before it reaches 1 million.

[TheMason]

At 11/15/06 04:29 PM, BaseballRobot wrote: The World is bullshit. There has always been mass murder and genocide, and there will always be. There is always someone becoming rich out of it.

Thats why I say the world is bullshit. The U.S.A. is bullshit. Churchill is bullshit. The United Nations is bullshit. Communism is bullshit. NATO is bullshit.

In the end, these things only serve to enrich some few.

Hmmmm...at the start of this thread I said:

Just some thoughts...well informed opinions please?

In the spirit of the great Rolling Stones song:
I guess you don't always get what you want...

[RedSkunk]

At 11/13/06 06:05 PM, TheMason wrote: Also look at Afghanistan in the 1980s, primative warriors were able to defeat a superpower.

And that was the example I was going to point to also. Not the greatest results here, eh?

The best solution in Darfur is for the US, NATO, EU, UN, whatever other acronym you want, to adequately fund another acronym – the African Union (AU). They have peacekeepers in Darfur now, and the government and nearly everyone involved is willing. But the AU is hampered by being a small, young organization. They don't have the $$$ or manpower to be effective at the moment.

Creating a working AU would also prove to be a stabilizing force in the future for Africa. It's sustainable. Arming rebel groups.. Just.. doesn't seem too bright. Seems like we've tried that, and that's how this all happens.

[TheMason]

At 11/15/06 10:31 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/13/06 06:05 PM, TheMason wrote:

Creating a working AU would also prove to be a stabilizing force in the future for Africa. It's sustainable. Arming rebel groups.. Just.. doesn't seem too bright. Seems like we've tried that, and that's how this all happens.

I think the AU stepping in could have some promise since they would be more likely to share the same customs and norms as the people who we wish to help.

As for arming rebel groups, that's not necessarily what I'm arguing I'm talking about arming victims. Whatever happened to the idea of the right to self-defense? I'm not advocating giving the opressed F-16s and SCUDS but AK-47s so when someone goes to their village, refugee camp or home with machetes to rape, pillage and savagely murder the occupants.

This is not Afghanistan...

[RedSkunk]

At 11/15/06 11:21 PM, TheMason wrote: This is not Afghanistan...

No, what you're advocating is a situation identical to Rwanda. But with AK-47s instead of machetes..

[LazyDrunk]

Fight wars with disease, not bullets. The natives accept it better.

[TheMason]

At 11/16/06 11:39 AM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/15/06 11:21 PM, TheMason wrote: This is not Afghanistan...

No, what you're advocating is a situation identical to Rwanda. But with AK-47s instead of machetes..

Not really identical to Rwanda; what I'm advocating is something different. Instead of doing nothing and acting like a bunch of antebellum women; I'm arguing that we might as well give them the means of defending themselves.

[TheMason]

At 11/13/06 06:48 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 11/13/06 06:31 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/13/06 06:15 PM, Istentelen wrote:

The sad fact is a civil war might be an improvement for the oppressed of Darfur.

:: Look at most Cival Wars that have happened in the history of the world, very few of them have turned out to be anywhere sucessfull, and few of the leaders of these wars knew when to stop fighting and start using peace.

Probelm is I'm not advocating starting a Civil War as a means to futher US foreign policy. What I'm saying is there is a situation in Darfur where there is no peace and there already exists mass slaughter. The UN has proven ineffectual, and the US would probably be as well. So in a case such as this, might we be faced with the perverse decision between upgrading genocide to a Civil War or allow the wholesale slaughter of an unarmed populace?

Sometimes we just have to take off the rose-colored glasses...

Why do you think that the US Cival War, in comparison, was ( in comparison) ended sooner, with a lesser causality count and that eventually later benifited the country.

Actually since there was 620,000 dead and missing in the US Civil War; Darfur has to suffer about 220,000 more dead before it compares to the US Civil War.

(It is spelled: Civil with two "i"s instead of Cival with an "a".)