Darfur is the poster child highlighting the complete corruption and uselessness of the UN as it exists today. One would think that after the abject failure to act in Rwanda, cut-n-run after the death of 10 Belgian soldiers, and formally apologizing for it less than 2 years ago, it might be a top priority at Turtle Bay.

Why be surprised though. Kofi Annan was head of UN peacekeeping operations in 1994. Today he is Secretary General. But hey – they are only up to about 200,000 dead in Darfur – they have a long way to go to match the 800,000 killed under his watch in 1994.

Ok, so the UN is totally useless at solving this problem. Check. National governments have also failed to solve this problem. Big surprise.

So, are we going to continue whining about the problem, or are we (as in us, the people on this blog, right here) going to actually DO SOMETHING about it?

Things we could do:

1. Try and lobby the government to do something about it. This involves competing with powerful interests with lots of money for the government's attention. How well has that worked so far?

2. We could try and send food and supplies to the starving victims. Maybe we could save some people from starving. Or maybe the food would just get intercepted by the murderous militias. Good planning is a must for this sort of mission.

3. We could try and send GUNS. Maybe the victims won't be able to defeat the Janjaweed, but with luck they might be able to take a few genocidal assholes with them.

4. We could organize an expedition of Marines. Surely there are some (semi-)retired members of the Brotherhood who might be ready for some real heroism. If there was ever a need for some Seven Samurai action, this is it.

5. We could organize a JIHAD. These apostate heretic scum are raping and pillaging in the name of Islam, dragging the blessed name of Allah through the mud. Are moderate^Wsane Muslims going to put up with this? Surely some Muslims are willing to die gloriously in His name fighting against real demons?

You guys probably have better ideas than these. My point is that hardly anyone else cares about this. That means it's up to us personally to do something. Even if we just manage to save one guy, that's still one more guy than would have otherwise been saved.

send in a brigade of Spanish troops? Hasnt the history of Srebinica, Somalia, etc showed us that you DONT want to send in just enough to start an operation, but not enough to win with overwhelming force? You send in a force against Sudans will (and theyre balking at UN force, they certainly wont stand for a euro force without UNSC backing) you can count on the sudan state fighting. A brigade out in the heart of africa is not going to succeed in that circumstance.

This has to be either a US effort or a multilateral effort (or both) no individual euro state can pull this off. SInce there arent US troops available, it has to be either UN or NATO.

But its always good to have something else to bash the Euros with, I suppose. Even if theyre the only ones likely to stand with us on this.

But its always good to have something else to bash the Euros with, I suppose. Even if theyre the only ones likely to stand with us on this.

That is the problem. The U.S. has to lead every operation, even as Europe tries to become a genuine world power. That Spain can't take on a pissant aspiring-to-be Third World country like Sudan is a justifiable stick to bash Europe with.

Obviously, though, you've got to work with what you've got. There is nothing to be gained by sitting high and mighty, using Darfur as an ongoing example of Europe's weakness. Europeans have consciences, but not so strong that they'll cut back on their welfare states to build an army capable of, you know, fighting a war. They can't do this, and they wouldn't if they could. So that leaves the U.S.

Ok, great. So how are we going to somehow get the US military machine (which is more than a little busy right now) to go clean up this mess? Note that there's ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY IN THIS FOR ANYONE. Very few components of the vast confluence of interests that made the Iraq operation happen will be on board for this one. The only leverage here is the moral one.

Maybe Bush can be swayed by moral leverage. Is the plan to sell him personally on what needs to be done? Does he have the political capital to "make it happen" if he can be convinced? Are the requisite forces even available right now?

If the pitch is irresistable enough, it doesn't have to go through too many gatekeepers to get to Bush. I'm 4 steps away: Clan Elder, Mutual Business Associate and Hunting Buddy, Senior, Junior. Probably most everyone here is within 7 steps. Are we lucky enough to have anyone closer?

There might be another option. War Nerd claims that the Janjaweed have started making trouble with neighboring Chad. Apparently the Chad Army is somewhat tougher than it might appear at first. Perhaps they might get involved for simple reasons like payback and self-defense.

Anyone else have any ideas?

The Europeans couldn't even manage this in their own backyards, never mind Africa. But they had more than enough forces to crush Milsoevic, too. Force is not what they are lacking.

And as for the military angle: 1 mechanized brigade each of Italian and Spanish soldiers, supported by 1 squadron each of air power (Spanish F-18s, Italian Tornados), would absolutely wipe the floor with anything Sudan chose to send against them in Darfur.

And 2 members of NATO = a NATO operation. Unless the French decide to enable the Sudanese, of course, as they enabled the genocide in Rwanda.

Worst case scenario, 2 middling European countries could have handled this under their own auspices. Even if Egypt decided to become an accessory to genocide by denying them passage, one could supply through Libya and Chad - slightly harder, but doable while implementing EU trade sanctions that would have the Egyptians reconsidering in a heartbeat.

If they wanted US aircraft off the coast to support that as a serious big stick in reserve (while tamping down the upsurge of piracy off East Africa) that would actually be pretty doable, too. That part of the US military isn't nearly as stretched as the ground troops, there's a good secondary mission, and nearby Djibouti has become a quiet but important base.

Arguing that the Europeans cannot send or supply an adequate force is an excuse, therefore, and not true. They are more than capable, and the forces to do it are there. They choose not to. I believe they will continue to choose to look the other way and do nothing of substance. Liberalhawk believes otherwise, though one wonders just what in European behaviour or Gary's article leads him to this touching faith.

Like I said: Darfur IS "The Global Test" in action. Are we pleased with the results, or not?

I'm certainly not - even though this is exactly what I expected.

"The Global Test" = open season for genocide. THAT is reality.

TJ,

If the US leadership had thought about its needs in this war - as Rumsfeld et. al. do not appear to have done, or have refused to see, either way - it might have set up a Foreign Legion after 9/11 and had a pair of East African brigades ready. Under even marginal terms like area-appropriate pay and citizenship in 15 if qualified for an honorable discharge, there would be no shortage of quality recruits.

That, plus 1 carrier group or even a carrier and a couple of ships (2 Arleigh Burke Destoyers, 1 AOE-6 supply ship) attaching to the existing Navy/Marines Expeditionary Strike Group out of Djibouti, would also have solved this little problem quite handily.

Imagine 2 brigades with Casspirs, Hummers, pickups, and some refurbed M113 APCs. A smaller group (invites are sent out to bush pilots as well) flies lightly armed Cessnas as recon aircraft and/or second-hand light commercial turboprops to handle supply. If things go well, they may see an upgrade to Schweitzer RU-38 "Twin Condors" and C-27J "Baby Hercs", but good commonality with the commercial support network in Africa may be more important. There are Shadow 200 UAVs that start as an attached US troop, but migrate to become organic. The approach with communications networks and troops is similar. A small group of US air defense troops also train with them and are on-call to be attached if needed, operating Stingers and Hummer/Avenger systems (this is never handed over). More involved air transport, helicopters, and fighter support requirements can be called in if needed from the US military.

Those who join the American Foreign Legion, join willingly. And anyone who qualifies for citizenship at the end of 15 years of service and consistent education in American civics and values would be someone, I think, whom you'd want in your country.

If the Europeans are no option at all - as they clearly are not - and the UN is usually on the bad guys' side - which it clearly is - the USA is going to have to think of other options. Options that come with local cultural and language knowledge, cost less, and are available for situations like this are a real positive.

Just ask the French - who found THEIR Foreign Legion very, very useful in a neighbouring country called Chad. Moammar Khadafy was less amused, but then his army lost back in the 80s to a bunch of Legionnaires in pickup trucks. Pickup trucks with anti-tank missiles, but still....

Ok. The US foreign legion is likely a better way to burn tax money than cabbage subsidies. Now, what's the first step in causing it to exist?

TJ, it's going to sound trite but... thinking. The idea has been stabbed at a couple of times, but no-one has yet made anything like an integrated case for it re; what it would look like, do, what its role would be, etc.

And it's a medium term thing, because it will take a while to make it happen even in the best case.

For the folks in Darfur, the best option that can work more quickly is probably support for [a] intervention that focuses on Special Forces who will organize the refugees and turn them into real military forces as opposed to simple bandits (that's a big part of what they do); and [b] then, as part of that effort, arm them.

The problem is not just military. We still have "friends and partners" in the war on terror who are members of the Arab League and the OIC. I don't see them sitting still for this - Cartoon wars on steroids, at best.

Iraq and Afghanistan hang in the balance. China and Russia (and quite possibly France) stand ready to triangulate any move we or NATO might make. The UN stands ready to denounce. Etc.

There are considerable political risks and consequences for acting militarily in Darfur.

"1 mechanized brigade each of Italian and Spanish soldiers, supported by 1 squadron each of air power (Spanish F-18s, Italian Tornados), would absolutely wipe the floor with anything Sudan chose to send against them in Darfur. "

I'll wait till an actual military expert says so. And addresses what they have thats actually deployable abroad, use of assymetrical warfare by Sudan (and probably AQ), the reliability of Darfuri rebels as local allies, logistics, airfields, etc, etc.

The Euros together could deal with it, I suppose. With some logistics support from the US. But Euro doesnt have a mechanism apart from NATO for such a deployment. If NATO isnt going to act, why would they act without NATO. And if WE want NATO to act, WE can push for it.

ADditionaly there is the real question of the availability of deployable troops. British troops appear to be overstretched, in Iraq and Afghanistan. French troops are in Haiti, Cote D'Ivoire, and Afghanistan. Spain has troops in Afghanistan.

The advantage of a UN deployment are A. You can use a wider range of forces - everyone available to NATO is still available, plus plenty of others. And it has more international legitimacy behind it (which matters, in many ways) esp as this is not near NATOS area of defense, unlike former Yugo.

You think China will veto? I dont know. Maybe we should put the burden on them of actually casting the veto.

"And addresses what they have thats actually deployable abroad, use of assymetrical warfare by Sudan (and probably AQ), the reliability of Darfuri rebels as local allies, logistics, airfields, etc, etc"

Thats the key. Too many people are still in the WW2 (of Gulf War) frame of mind where armies line up and pound the crap out of each other. That has about as much utility in todays world as the 19th Century firing line. No 2nd or 3rd world military can take on even a single brigade of a modern western army in a classical assault. But that was pretty much true in 1969 as well, it's simply taken 30 years to filter into everybodys skulls.
This is not an unusual state of affairs, there is a reason everyone is always preparing for the last war. We have a big heavy military still at its heart designed to maul Soviet tank divisions, and so it is easy and commonplace to imagine what would happen if the Iranians or Syrians or Sudanese lined up their 30 years old tanks out on an open plain and offered battle. Obviously they would be wiped out. Obvious to everyone including the Iranians, Syrians, Sudanese, etc. Thats why it will never happen. Pure self-preservation. On the other hand everybody also knows that these big heavy units need tons of supplies and are heavily dependant on their logistic and organizational structures. If anything European armies are worse about this than the US that has spent some serious attention on making its military lighter and more independant.

Mark, the problem the Sudanese/Janjaweed would face is that they are really, obviously physically different from the native population, and not attacking in mixed population urban areas but riding into rural Darfur to rape, kill, and cause havoc. That's very easy to stop, and the options for "asymetrical warfare" are pretty damn slim.

The threat to a force that checks the Janjaweed (and though wouldn't take much) would be, precisely, Sudan's regular forces which have participated by bombing villages, etc. So eliminating the set piece battle option makes it pretty much game over.

As for China's veto, China has said it would veto not only a peacekeeping force, but also any meaningful sanctions. You can do the puppet dance after that, liberalhawk, but I'll just accept their word and not waste time with the ever-rigged "Global Test".

You might try the minor expedient of googling "China Darfur veto"

>>TJ, it's going to sound trite but... thinking.

Ok, that's quite reasonable. Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

>>And it's a medium term thing, because it will take a while to make it happen even in the best case.

For sure. Let's get started now, so maybe there will be somebody left when help gets over there.

>>For the folks in Darfur, the best option that can work more quickly is probably support for [a] intervention that focuses on Special Forces who will organize the refugees and turn them into real military forces as opposed to simple bandits (that's a big part of what they do); and [b] then, as part of that effort, arm them.

Does anyone around here have any current or ex-Special Forces pals? Maybe they might have some useful input on what can be done, and how much it would cost.

>>The problem is not just military. We still have "friends and partners" in the war on terror who are members of the Arab League and the OIC. I don't see them sitting still for this - Cartoon wars on steroids, at best.

I suspect that although many of those "friends and partners" are indeed corrupt scum, most of them aren't "raping large numbers of women to death" scum. (If they are, now would be the time to find out.) Hell, I'm not even certain what side of the line Bin Laden's Boyz are on w.r.t. this issue. Good PR would help here -- video footage of what the Janjaweed militia actually do to villages broadcast on Al Jazeera might make the Arab Street STFU.

I just had a crazy idea. I wonder what the Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam think about this problem. They seem like the sort of people who would get really steamed about large numbers of blacks being slaughtered by "muslim" heretics.

JK

With all do respect, I dont know the situation on the ground in darfur, or the military constraints, and neither do you. After Iraq, Im inclined to go in big and not go in small. Yes I know that the situation isnt the same, but I also doubt we're going to get all the relevant out by debating here.

So if we REALLY want to do this, why NOT do it WITH the US, and NATO - why suggest that Spain and Italy (of all people) should do it themselves? Is the US govt suggesting that? Is John Bolton suggesting that? Is that something really on the table internationally? I mean it just sounds so out of left field, something you came up with to show the spineless of the eurocommies. Look, overstretched or not, the US is the superpower. If we arent going to take the opprobrium for going in without a UNSC resolution, why are medium powers going to do so? The world doesnt work that way.

Im gonna have to google global test, cause i dont know what youre getting at.

JK

Oh i see. a knock at the other JK, the junior senator from Mass. Well knockaway, that man's an irrelevancy.

Thanks for the link,btw, that had some good info.

Liberalhawk: If you're looking for precedent, look at the US Special Forces operations in Kurdistan around 1991 and thereafter. Analogies are never perfect, but that's close.

"If we arent going to take the opprobrium for going in without a UNSC resolution, why are medium powers going to do so? The world doesnt work that way."

Which simply underlines the level of the mistake.

There will be no UNSC resolution, China is bought and has made that clear. What your recipe means is exactly, as I pointed out in #6, outsourcing global security and the prevention of genocide to the UN Security Council = open season for genocide.

And that is precisely my point.

My secondary point is that the USA does NOT have to do it all, or be involved every time. Look around at the world's armies, and there are an lot of soldiers outside the USA. Deployable numbers are significantly lower, but certainly adequate for a number of situations.

The failure is not one of means, but of will. And the choices of the actors involved are my secondary point, because they help clarify who and what we are dealing with.

Darfur would be a very good NATO mission, which is probably why W. is suggesting it. But if NATO is relevant it must be able to take on missions of this scale without requiring that the USA contribute the bulk of the ground combat power every time.

If NATO can't do that, its utility comes into sharp question and alternative options are required - at least, if goals like the prevention of genocide and core/gap work are important missions.

Alternatively, you could just accept that future Rwandas and Darfurs are going to be a regular feature of life, and that the system you choose to demand that the USA follow enables them.

I think we may be close to violent agreement here (but you DO have a way of disguising what you mean). Youre saying

1. We shouldnt always use UNSC approval as a test of whether to go in in cases of genocide
A. Well, we've already been down that road on Kosovo. Sudan may be a bit harder - that its not in Europe gives the more reluctant euros more excuse to say its out of area - and western mil forces ARE more overstretched overall than in 1999. But the principle is there. (and of course this is different from Iraq in that theres an ongoing ethniccleansing/genocide NOW)
2. That US doesnt have to provide most ground forces A. I agree
3. That the UN path is useless A. Well im not in complete agreement, but I dont see why we shouldnt start taking steps to ready a non-UN path at the same time we pursue a UN path.

I think we are mostly in violent agreement - but there are a few points of friction. Putting it this way via numbered propositions really clarifies things, thanks.

1. Totally agree.

Where we disagree is that in fact, I beleieve it's an invalid test, period, and that granting it validity in any sphere simply creates the problem we're seeing of paralysis in Darfur.

People don't make fine distinctions after you've convinced them that the UN Security Council should be making war and peace decisions for the USA. Instead of taking the keys back from them on certain occasions, I say "don't give that corrupt institution the keys in the first place."

Which covers our disagreement re: #3. Why give Kofi a second opportunity to serve as a personal enabler of genocide, as he did in Rwanda? And as I said, China is bought and has openly declared so. You're running into a rigged process you can't win, and in going there you legitimize it both now and for next time. That's seems somewhere between foolish and crazy to me.

Now throw in the fact that UN operations suffer under restrictions (not least of which is required 'even-handedness" between the perpetrators and victims of genocide, rather than restoring justice) that make failure in situations like Darfur certain. Again, seems crazy to me if the main interest is preventing genocide rather than "being seen to be doing something."

2. Agree.

In fact, there are a number of circumstances in which the proper response to "how many?" is "none." US ground troops are needed as hedges against too many other major contingencies that its "allies" do not have to confront. It must either plus its ground forces up substantially, or husband them for the big stuff and let more of the little things slide. Realities of war - it was't like that in the 1990s, but that was then and now is different. If the NATO thing is going to work in these kinds of situations, the USA needs to backstop more and spearhead less.

Fortunately, the USA has other assets that are unique, and less prone to overstretch. The "big stick backup" I described above re: Sudan is an example. No-one else can do that, as in not one other country in the world has that capability (i.e. a full-size aircraft carrier that can mess with you, but even if you manage to mess with it successfully, all that does is attract overwhelming, certain and very final retaliation). How's that for asymetry? America's carriers are not the only example of such unique capabilities.

Which brings me to the points that emerged in my comments. I'll call it:

4. If the prevention of genocide and "sysadmin force" work is essential, other options that do not require the UN or Europeans must be developed while we see if NATO is a viable answer.

A. UN is useless in preventing genocide (I would go farther and say "and not infrequently an open abettor/ inciter").
B. We'd like NATO to work, but it may not turn out to be a viable option for such scenarios either (Darfur is a pretty good test; US is trying, jury's out, we'll see)....
C. So, if the objectives are truly important, other options must be contemplated and found.