Winds of Change.NET: U.S. Military: No Blood for Congo

U.S. Military: No Blood for Congo

by Joe Katzman at June 6, 2003 8:50 AM

Actually, this post isn't about willingness at all. It's about the saying above as literal truth: no new blood left. When we look at the U.S. military and its commitments in Iraq, current peacekeeping missions, and Korean contingency forces - they're more than fully booked right now (Hat Tip: One Hand Clapping, who also has a great quote).

So, what are the implications for the Congo? We'll start by defining "fully booked"...

"Therefore, aside from one brigade of the 82nd airborne, and two brigades of the 10th mountain, the regular army's manpower is essentially ALL either in use in Iraq, in use in Afghanistan, in use for peacekeeping, or needed for Korea contingencies..."

Bottom line: downsizing the military has had real consequences. When it comes to troops, you can't do more with less - you can only do less with less. At its current size the U.S. military is already stretching its reserve forces just to stay current, using many of them on extended commitments that may have them absent from their civilian jobs for over a year. They cannot take on new commitments without a full national wartime mobilization. Britain is in a similar situation, and in fairness Germany is pretty busy too.

This shouldn't be surprising. Even a hyperpower can't do it all, especially in an era where the old colonial approach of small imperial forces plus large local levies and utterly ruthless tactics are not an option. If something is to be done about the slaughter in the Congo, therefore, other nations will need to place significant combat formations on the ground.

Sierra Leone showed that it's possible to fix African chaos with small forces, as long as they're quality troops willing to aggressively kill those involved in and organizing the violence. That's how 800 British soldiers succeeded where 8,000 U.N. "peacekeepers" had been routed. That said, Sierra Leone is about 1/30 the size of the Congo, a country with almost 5 times as much land area as Iraq.

The present group of 1,000 or so peacekeepers, uselessly present since 1998, is a PR joke and a moral evasion, not a solution. When "peacekeeping" troops are asking to be allowed to use their weapons to protect endangered civilians, one quickly sees how deep the farce goes. The genocide in Rwanda was no accident, it was a predictable consequence that happened with Kofi Annan's direct and connivance. Srebrenica was no accident. Another 3 million+ dead in Congo is no accident, either - it is a direct consequence of the choices the U.N. and its Security Council have made to date.

If this is going to be done to international standards for protecting civilians, etc., I'd say even a no holds barred force that's serious about bringing the death toll to a halt will need to be 20,000-50,000 strong, with on-call air support, helicopter and medium transport planes, armor (armored cars or LAVs will do), and artillery. They'll also have to be prepared to shoot first, take no guff, and impose peace.

This is where we find out if terms like "the international community" and "multilateral" have any actual meaning and effect. Or any moral significance, for that matter. Everyone wishing for the USA to be less dominant - you just got your wish. I'm deeply curious to see what other countries like France, China, Egypt, India, Italy, Indonesia, Turkey et. al. with large militaries, significant wealth, or both, do with this situation.

If anything.

Bosnia/Kosovo was a turning point for many liberals, the genesis of a new generation of liberal hawks whose attitudes played an important role post-9/11. Read the liberal blogosphere, and you can see similar memes at work again. I'm glad to see it, and I sense another turning point on the way - but something tells me this one will owe more to the aftermath of tragedy than the afterglow of triumph.

--- UPDATES ---

· I've got a major follow-up piece that offers more local background and history on how this conflict developed, looks at the vast gulf between what 's required and the 20th-century transnationalist mindset, and analyzes this turning point concept in more detail.

· Michael Totten has a very good piece called "The Globalization of Chaos." Solid commentary from a center-liberal perspective, and even some thoughts on what we might do. As he notes:

"The defining feature of the 21st Century is the globalization of chaos. We have no system to handle all this, and we cannot ignore it much longer."

More confirmation in my mind that this is another turning point for many liberals... maybe more of a turning point than they think.

· Flit says Canada is fully booked as well. He's right, but our capabilities are so meager I thought that fact hardly worth mentioning.

· Does ChicagoBoyz have the answer? No, but this is fantastic satire.

· Newsrack has some good links, and reminds us not to forget Zimbabwe, either, and includes action links & addresses. Strong non-military options still have a chance to make a difference there - though I think the only way to really solve that problem is ultimately assassination, an uprising trained, led, and supplied via Western Special Forces, or invasion.

Persons wishing to contact the author of this article for reprints etc. should put a request in the Comments section, or send an email to "joe", over here @windsofchange.net.