From Reuters:
Secretary-General Kofi Annan intends to ask President George W. Bush on Monday what the United States can contribute to a mobile UN force to stop the killings, rape and pillaging in Sudan’s Darfur region.
The United States has offered military planners for the Darfur operation, which will arrive on Monday. But it has made no offer of air coverage or other assistance for the venture, expected to be comprised mainly of African and Asian troops, who form the bulk of all UN forces.
At issue is a transfer of command from an underfunded African Union force of 7,000 monitors and troops in Darfur to UN peacekeepers, a move U.S. Ambassador John Bolton promoted in the Security Council last week by drafting a statement asking the world body to begin contingency planning.
Annan said Darfur’s plight, which the United States has characterized as genocide, was too dire for rich nations to pay but not participate in the mission, which will increase the $5 billion spent on peacekeeping last year.
“It is not going to be easy for the big and powerful countries with armies to delegate to third world countries. They will have to play a part if we are going to stop the carnage that we see in Darfur,” Annan told reporters on Thursday.
Asked if Bush would be asked to participate, Annan said, “I will share with him the facts that I have shared with you, the needs that we have, and the countries that I think can supply those needs, and that will include the U.S.”
I’ll be interested to hear reaction to this call for military intervention from some of our own politicos on both sides—those who justified the invasion of Iraq by invoking rape rooms and a regime who used torture as official policy, and those who have argued aggressively that the US invasion of Iraq, which put an end to those very practices, was “illegal” and immoral and etc.
I’m also interested to see how Bush reacts—if our armed forces can handle the request, it being stretched to the point of breaking, as the press has continued to tell us.
In the meantime, John Bolton’s straight-talking mustache, Regis, was available for comment, though he remained coy, noting: “Let’s just say when Regis says ‘jump,’ Kofi is learning to ask ‘how high oh powerful hairpatch of righteousness and fairness’.”
Gee, Kofi, where the heck have you been? Why don’t you do something about it? Not enough oil money in Darfur for you do be interested?
Enough with the Useless Nations selective outrage.
Why can’t anybody use “comprise” correctly?
So anyway, I hope we do intervene, with others. I would make our military presence contingent on a significant troop contribution from the other “rich” nations, if I had my druthers, not only because we have our own fish to fry at the moment, not only because the Sudan is not particularly strategic, but also out of sheer cussedness.
I myself didn’t justify the invasion of Iraq, before the fact, by the means Jeff suggests; I did and do note these important side benefits, however.
I want the atrocities in that benighted place to stop. I want the world community to rise up en masse to make it happen. I also want a villa in Spain, and probably I have just about as much chance of one as of the others.
Send in the freaking blue hats! We’re a little busy right now–cleaning up your mess in Iraq, Kofi.
He said he wants to stop the raping and murdering, not just switch perpetrators.
We should have been there 12 months ago.
I agree. No more of this America taking the heaviest burden bullshit.
We can spare at least a regiment. It would be worth it to execute righteous judgements against the Janajaweed murderers and rapists.
Just so long as we can detour into Turtle Bay and sieze every document in the building and give them to Eliot Spitzer. WE ARE THE LAW!!
TW: “report,” as in “This will all come out in the corruption reports.”
On the one hand, schadenfreude is a delightful thing. On the other hand, people are getting whacked in carload lots.
So, yeah, send the troops in – but make it NATO or somesuch. Insist that multinational also has its benefits – that it’s not just another way to fill US next-of-kin forms.
Prior to Iraq, I would have been all for going in with both boots and putting paid to those SOBs. Now, after all the opportunism and wrangling, I am willing for the US to take a “leadership” position. But not a “Brokeback Bottom” position.
BRD
Is this the “Failed Academic Edition?” Because if it’s not, I demand a full refund.
The Darfur situation is a huge stain on every civilized country. What gets me is why isn’t Germany, France, Spain, et al, taking the lead in getting in there and straightening things up? The UN cleaning it up is not going to happen – look at Kosovo.
Shine the light on the cockroaches and watch them run.
The European Union should be the lead on this. If nothing else, their troops—including the leadership—needs the combat experience.
Not to mention that after the serious heckling we took from the moonbat brigade—lead by various Euroweenies—it’s time for those pukes to put up or shut up.
You want multilateral? Show me multilateral!!!
TW: I don’t expect a serious answer from them.
We should definitely put the second tier armies of France, Germany, and Spain into the region. We can supply air support, and while we have enough troops to supply a regiment, it wouldn’t be good to try and add them to a mix with these other troops. The big problem is Command and Control, we are years ahead of these other countries and the technologies don’t mix. We even have trouble integrating with the British, why do think they have their own area in Iraq.
From what I have read, the troops we are facing in Darfur are not nearly as heavily armed as those in Iraq. I think second tier troops can handle this mess and I would like to see them give it a go.
But these are Muslims doing their thing to non-Muslims. Aren’t we afraid of upsetting the sensibilities of the Muslim World?
Possible, but under US COMMAND ONLY! No Brussels Beauzeaux need apply.
And we taks armor and air. Otherwise, forget it.
Kofi Annan is trying to blame us for the UN’s abject failure to act in Darfur. That’s the bottom line.
The US cannot do everything.
It isn’t as if China, Japan, Russia, India, and the EU don’t have the resources. Any one of them could handle the Darfur logistics and costs with little trouble.
And sometimes it is necessary to shoot to bring order. But any US troops that do so will be accused of genocide. Just as we are now accused of abetting genocide for not sending troops.
The real problem is that the African Union and the UN want to control the effort. But they have for years. And what has that wrought?
The situation in Darfur is appalling, and something needs to be done. But the only time we hear certain people clamoring for American help is when the U.S. has no actual self-interest (just a humanitarian interest).
We had a self-interest in Iraq, but much of what we did was humanitarian work, and we’re catching bloody hell for it.
So now we’re supposed to do purely altruistic work in Darfur with our military (which some might have noticed is otherwise occupied these days), when we have only a humanitarian interest?
What should happen in Darfur—what should have happened long ago—is that the U.N. should have all the worthless western countries (you know, the ones who won’t help us defend the West, like Canada, Germany, France, Belgium, Sweden, etc.) send their militaries to stop the genocide. What the hell else do they have to do?
And if the U.N. can’t even deal with genocide, it should close up shop. (Yes, I remember Rwanda.)
Robert Crawford:zactly!
Someone care to remind me of when this Sudan thing got underway…
Kofi ought to check with Slick and see if he’s got a couple of those Tommihawks left over from the last time. We taught they ass a lesson back in ‘98 I’m tellin you.
TW: girl
As in, Ol’ Slick might be to busy to answer the phone right now.
In response to Lew Clark above, the Darfurians are also Muslim. It’s not Muslim vs. non-Muslim. In fact religion plays a relatively small part in the conflict, unlike the 20-year North-South civil war.
I was unaware there was a civilized country involved in it. But, then, I’m a lot more lenient on sins of omission than sins of commission.
Well, if Kofi’s finally admitting there’s a problem, I guess everyone in Darfur is already dead…
The timing of Kofi’s request is suspicious. With Persia in our crosshairs, he now wants our boys in Sudan.
All of you McChimpyburton slugs, including our erudite host, are going for the bait. I don’t know ‘bout you, but being the UN’s bitch is not an avocation to strive for.
Think white and get serious.
Sean: spot on!
Can you hear that old song playin’ in the background? “Send in the clowns”
That 8:45 post came from the same IP as actus, right?
When the U.S. and others, send in troops to take control of the Sudanese Pipeline of Weapons to the Janjaweed, and helicopters and support for the military performing genocide,
It will be because forces cut the Oil Money pipeling that’s paying for the Sudanese military,
that pipeline was built by China, puts oil in Chinese tankers, has Chinese advisers in Sudan, and provides the Sundanese Sharia govt. with Oil Currency which is funding this.
Does Kofi want to address that in a meaningful way to put that up on the table and perhaps ? Then the U.S. will be sending in troops for “regime change” in Sudan.
Something that should have been done when Colen was Sec. of State.
It’s the Oil Stupid, before the Chinese built pipeline and Chinese oil revenue the Sudanese were too poor to run genocidal operations.
Frankly, it’s a sucker’s bet. This McChimpyburton slug thinks that the UN is hopeless, they know it, and the situation is too much for them. By sticking its big toe in the water, the US will ultimately be the fall-guy. If we do it, it has to be more accurate than we are capable of, quicker than we seem to be with barely visible targets, and we better have pics of the entire world leadership in flagrent delicti (sp?) to ensure PR support.
Horst, not everyone here wants the US to do this.
This is a UN and African Union problem. And the EU can get off their collective tusch for once.
The downside is that regardless of what President Bush says, the Moonbat Brigade will howl in a derisive chorus. Too little, too much, neglecting Iraq, neglecting Afghanistan, etc.
OTOH, a little criticism never hurt anyone. Especially if the criticizers have near-zero credibility on the subject.
President Bush: Just Say No.
Ummm… because that’s how we GOT that region in the first place?
Hmmmm.
Did Bush try and push this, along with Colin Powell, a few years ago and got nothing but a big-ass yawn from Dopey Kofi?
And now it’s an issue? Why now? Perhaps to really make sure that America’s military is stretched out too much to take on Iran?
What I’m not seeing from the UN is an actual plan here, and that’s…a bit of a concern concern.
Is the Secretary General simply going to ask for a bunch of troops and send them down to the refugee camps so everyone can feel good about participating? Have the troops sit around until the participating countries get tired of having their troops away from home, recall them, and let the Janjuweed get back to their merry killing ways? If that’s the plan, then I’ll graciously back out for more serious work.
If Mr. Annan, however, wants to propose something serious here- an overwhelming force type operation to cripple the Janjuweed and their Sudanese support structure, capture/kill a list of targets, and start a serious international reconstruction project of Sudan as a whole coordinated by, but not limited to, American forces…then that’s something actually worth talking about. But under no condition is the UN going to act as executive on this. Nato? perhaps. G-8? Also a good place to look.
Aside from the fact that stopping genocide happens to be what good guys do, getting involved is Sudan is simply getting a head start on the next big battleground of the GWoT. Sub-Saharran Africa is Al Queda’s rear (and there is certainly evidence they are already operating in the region)…so we might as well start making our presence felt.
Havoc discusses the ties to China. This is interesting, and causes some pasuse, as it could conceivebly lead to a tripwire for the looming Sino-American conflict. The sat thing we need at this time is to set in motion a chain of events that lead to a new war or a third theatre of operations.
We are too busy covering our own butt, and the EU et.al. are sitting back with nothing else too do. But then too, they don’t have near the same military budget. I agree with the earlier poster who callls for these countries to put-up or shut-up in the great multilateral coaltion pipedream they are so fond of.
Afterall, we have led the way is showning the world that if something is so important, you can take care of it. Regardless or not if other states want to play.
TW: Ch-ch-h-changes…. You know there’s got to be a better way.
Kofi Asshat is trying to play a gotcha game with America. “Oh HO! You’ve been bitching at us to do something about Sudan, but when we finally get around to it like you wanted us to and we ask The Greatest Military In The World for their help, they tell us they’re ‘stretched too thin??’ SPARE US A REGIMENT, YOU FUCKING HYPOCRITES!!” That’s all it’s really about, aside from protecting Persian oil – they want to make us look like we’re spouting hypocrisy.
Great.
Because, you know, things started falling apart in Sudan only yesterday.
Meanwhile, on another topic, everything is just peachy in the Congo.
One Brigade Combat Team, 6 months – buh bye Janjaweed. Would the BCT get the freedom to do this – doubtful. If it did happen, then you could send in the second string (Euroweenies like Belgians, etc.)- kind of like Bosnia, only faster.
I’ll start practicing my Nubian language skills (when I take a break from Farsi).