Display:
Everyone is cowering in fear before the Khartoum regime, convinced that even the slightest intervention would lead to an Iraq-style quagmire.

I call bullshit.  I submit that defeating Khartoum would be quick and easy.  And the precedent is not Iraq, but Serbia.

For three years the western powers dithered over what to do about Bosnia.  Send in outnumbered UN "peacekeepers" who sat back and watched as Bosnians were massacred.  Send a token jet it to allow food convoys to pass through, only to have them blockaded again.  We can't intervene because we can't fight a war, we can't sort through centuries-old ethnic hatreds.  Excuse after pathetic excuse.  Blah blah fucking blah.

Finally President Clinton acted, and started bombing the Serbs.

The war ended in a month.

Four years later: repeat identical scenario in Kosovo.  Chomskyites started screaming about imperialism in the Balkans and how all this would strengthen Milosevic....who was overthrown within a year.

The NIF regime in Khartoum do not have the military power of Hitler or the political cunning of Milosevic.  They are cowards, pure and simple, murderous cowards who can kill children and rape defenceless women, but who have no ability to fight a truly determined enemy.  

A NATO force that bombed the shit out of Khartoum and the oil fields would end the genocide in a week.  

But only black people would benefit, so we don't do it.

(And if you insist on the Iraq parallel, the correct analogy is not 2003, when the regime had snuffed out opposition and was firmly in control, but 1991, when the regime faced two-front revolts and could have been overthrown by local elements with only token external aid.  Today, Iraqi Kurdistan, the only place where this was allowed to happen, is Iraq's most peaceful and well-governed region.)

by tyronen on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 04:35:46 PM EST
So work through the scenario for me:

  1. We bomb some stuff.
  2. We send in lots of troops to do what, exactly?
  3. What happens next?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 04:42:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Read your own comments people.

Just do for Darfur exactly what was done for Bosnia.  Bosnia may not have a truly stable peace, but it is miles better off than it was 1992-95.

by tyronen on Tue Sep 5th, 2006 at 01:41:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
While Americans were so happy about their bombing campaign in Bosnia that they had to repeat it in Kosovo and then in Afghanistan and Iraq, Europeans are still blistering from the experience in Bosnia and have no appetite for further adventures.

Again, you want the US to bomb Khartoum and the EU to pick up the pieces?

There are two Chapter 7 resolutions empowering UNMIS already, 1560 and 1709, with authorisation to deploy almost 20 thousand troops. The troops could come from anywhere.

I hasten to add that we're still busy coming up with 15000 troops for UNIFIL to cover Israel's ass in Lebanon.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 5th, 2006 at 02:22:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I call bullshit.  I submit that defeating Khartoum would be quick and easy.  And the precedent is not Iraq, but Serbia.

While I don't think it would be quite as quick and easy as all that, I agree it would be well within the capabilities of the EU or the US, and could be done at minimal cost in EU or US lives. The problem is keeping the peace afterwards. Bosnia initially had sixty thousand well armed troops. We'd need far more in the much larger Darfur. Where are we going to get them? In Bosnia we also had the convenience of fairly clear ethnic boundaries courtesy of the ethnic cleansing that had preceded the intervention. That made preventing reverse ethnic cleansing easier, unlike in Kosovo where most of the Serb minority was scattered among the Albanians.

we can't sort through centuries-old ethnic hatreds.

It's not centuries old ethnic hatreds that I'm worried about but rather quite understandable hatred generated by what has happened over the past several years.

by MarekNYC on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 04:53:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
While I don't think it would be quite as quick and easy as all that, I agree it would be well within the capabilities of the EU or the US, and could be done at minimal cost in EU or US lives. The problem is keeping the peace afterwards.

Exactly.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 04:56:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If there had been a ground invasion of Serbia, NATO would still be mired there.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 04:55:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You do realize Bosnia is still effectively an EU protectorate? Yeah, Clinton came in, bombed, ended the fighting, left, and the EU is still busy keeping the whole tottering edifice from collapsing.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 05:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sometimes it is really easy to guess where people are from...

Does anybody know how many US troops are still on the Balkans?
Isn't slowly becoming a rule or tradition that the brave US "bombs some stuff" and the "fucking retarded" Europeans then babysit for the next few decades?


Atlantic Review - A press digest on transatlantic affairs edited by three German Fulbright Alumni

by Atlantic Review (bl -at- atlanticreview dot org) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 08:55:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
any reason Europe can't clean up its own mess, without involving US bombing or troops?
by wchurchill on Fri Sep 8th, 2006 at 03:18:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When you say "Europe" do you mean the EU, the CoE, the geographical definition? (see here for details)

Depending on your meaning of Europe, in what way was the Balkan mess "its own"? (Example: you interpret Europe to mean the EU, and so the mess would not be in the EU but in its "back yard", a problematic concept in itself) There are subtle ways in which Powell's Pottery Barn rule applies to the EU-12 and the Balkan Wars, but is that what you're thinking about?

See also this thread for a look a who is actually busy cleaning up messes not of their own making (the US deployment in Iraq doesn't count: the pottery barn rule applies).

In any case, in the 10 years since the war in Bosnia the EU has developed its Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Defence Agency precisely to address its failures in the Balkan wars. Some attempt has been made to learn from past mistakes, especially so that US bombing or troops is not necessary.

Who's cleaning up Israel's mess in Lebanon?

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 8th, 2006 at 04:50:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm bored of this particular argument. I'll put up a front-page story and see if we can tease it out.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 8th, 2006 at 05:00:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series