The military options for the relief of Darfur from genocide (1 Viewer)

[Peter Dow]

As Condi said recently - “We have come to a moment of great consequence in Darfur .” US Department of State report.

That report has put what Condi said in full about Darfur on the record
- but it is always nice to have a video summary
- so I've uploaded a BBC News item including an excerpt or two from Condi's address to the Africa society.

http://www.zshare.net/video/condiondarfur768-wmv.html

Now I want to deal with the confrontation options we have -

The military options
for the relief of Darfur from genocide

“Gordon of Khartoum ”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sudan

British General Charles George Gordon (1833 - 1885), the former colonial governor of Sudan was sent back to the Sudan in 1884 to try to rescue English garrisons which were under attack but was himself besieged in Khartoum by the Mahdi’s army.
A British relief expedition arrived in Khartoum on 28th January 1885 to find that after a siege of ten months, Gordon had been captured and killed two days before. The government of British Prime Minister Gladstone was toppled largely as a result.

OK let’s not make THAT mistake!

So Darfur .

Objectives

Now the political objective here is relief for the people of Darfur from genocidal attacks from regular or militia forces operating in Darfur under the control and with the support of the Khartoum based government of Sudan .

Diplomacy (our Condi) has achieved UN authority for a UN ground force to go into Darfur to protect the civilians from genocide but the Khartoum-based regime is resisting the deployment of such a UN force.

Therefore the military objective is to confront and remove the capacity of the forces under the evil President of Sudan - Omar al-Bashir - to prevent Sudanese forces waging war on the people of Darfur, so that the UN force may deploy in Darfur anyway, without the consent and in the teeth of the any and all opposition of Bashir and his regime.

Strategies.

Air-power

There are reports of airpower being deployed against Darfur villages - journalists have reported evidence of the parts of exploded bombs being discovered in sites where villages and villagers have been wiped out.

Image:Villages destroyed in the Darfur Sudan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

Yes it is commonly understood that

The Muslim/Arab Sudanese government pays mercenaries on horseback with AK-47's and machetes to slaughter the Black/African Sudanese people

but the Wikipedia article on the Darfur conflict notes that -

It should be noted that nearly all of the residents of Darfur are Muslim, as are the Janjaweed and the government leaders in Khartoum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

So it looks like the Black/African Darfur/Sudanese villagers who are being slaughtered may well be Muslims too.

But the main point about government paid mercenaries etc. does correspond with reports but it is NOT true to say that Sudan’s air-force is not a factor, either now or later. It IS a factor.

Because a vicious genocidal regime without an air-force to support its forces has great difficulty in enforcing its control over a large country.

That is why we imposed no-fly zones on Iraq under Saddam for so many years. So that he could not use air-power to oppress the Kurds and marsh Arabs. Remember?

Likewise, if the UN force deploys in Darfur then any air-force under the opposing Khartoum regime represents a grave threat to the UN force.

Therefore the air-power of the Khartoum regime must be eliminated.

Now it must be left to military planners to decide on the exact method of attacking Sudanese air-power but missile and/or air attacks would seem to be the best options there.

I do not believe that we should be considering a ground attack with tanks and infantry etc. on Sudanese airfields outside Darfur because it is not necessary to occupy those airfields in order to destroy the air-power of Sudan .

So once the Sudanese air force has been taken out - what next?

Well the UN force can go to Darfur - not necessarily via Sudanese ports on the Red Sea and not necessarily by crossing the Sudanese Nile area densely occupied by people who may be out of sympathy with our forces and the people of Darfur and rather more in sympathy with the Sudanese regime.

No. It may be better to enter Darfur via a friendlier route. Maybe Egypt, maybe Libya, maybe Chad, maybe Central African republic. Plenty of options there.

Also it would be nice to have some modest air power elements stationed at airfields in or near Darfur to support the UN ground force in patrolling duties and helping to ward off genocidal Sudanese forces.

So here I am thinking of helicopters or ground attack airplanes. It wouldn’t need to be much to deter attacks by militia forces on horseback with AK47s. But if the UN force has some air-power at its disposal and the Sudanese has none - that will push the balance of power decisively in our favour.

Any air-fields in Darfur we use would need to be defended by some good ground forces in case of surprise ground attack.

Now as to President Bashir

and the Sudanese high command who will be at war with us - Yes of course they are legitimate targets and if we get lucky if a target of opportunity arises - then sure, take them out.

However, regime change in Khartoum is not the primary objective this time. So we should NOT be planning on a ground troop invasion of the densely populated Nile region in and around Khartoum .

Regime change in Khartoum would be nice but it is not worth the cost in ground forces to make that a primary objective. Just as well really as our ground forces are pretty busy already in Iraq and Afghanistan .

Now if President Bashir wants to speak at a rally in Khartoum or elsewhere to whip up the crowds for a war to “liberate” Darfur from “occupying” UN forces - then by all means send a volley of ballistic or cruise missiles to that rally to spoil the party.

The target is a military one - the President and high command - yet civilian casualties are possible if any civilian is stupid enough to attend such a military rally in war time. I regret any collateral damage yet there may be few other opportunities to take a shot at the regime’s leaders.

Make no mistake about it. Such military action is redrawing the map and if we do this - the old country of the Sudan will have lost Darfur in practical terms - maybe for good, depending on how the people of Darfur want to decide on their future.

The genocide of Rwanda "never again"? Then let’s relieve Darfur as soon as possible.