Sudan next?

[Grimweasel]

Jacko said in the Sunday Torygraph that 5000 troops could be used in the Sudan if needed later on in the crisis!
Are they going to call up the Home Guard to do this?
Where the hell are those troops gonna come from. Not the Black Watch or the Highland Fusiliers as they face the axe? Or could this be the Glory that they need to save them????

Can't see them risking air assets as there is a civil war raging. What ?

Hot from the BBC web site 15 mins ago....

"There are precedents for using troops not to attack a central government but to provide security for refugees. After the Gulf War in 1991 the US, Britain and others set up safe areas for the Kurdish refugees from Iraq who flooded over the mountains into Turkey.

Planning is already under way. Britain is thinking about a joint civilian-military team, according to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who is going to Sudan soon.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has also been to Sudan. The government there is in no doubt about world opinion.

The Africa Union has promised a small force of 300 soldiers to act as monitors of some kind. "

[pr00ne]

Grimweasel,

It wasn't Jackonicko who said that, it was the Chief of the General Staff General Sir Michael Jackson, and he should know!
If he thinks 5000 troops are ready to go right now then I guess they are!

Where are the 102k right now, 8500 in Iraq, a few thousand in Bosnia?

[uncle peter]

proone, perhaps you were a tad overzealous with your pedantry as "jacko" is also the nickname for General Jackson. (sorry if trod on your toes in replying grimweasel)

As a mere observation from your profile proone, it would appear that any post suggesting overstretch or commenting on the cuts in derogatory terms, has warranted an opposing, fulsome and prompt reply. Just an observation.

[pr00ne]

Grimweasel,

Sorry, totally misunderstood!

uncle peter,

So?

[SPIT]

Hi
We all know that the MOD relies heavily on the TA and the likes in Bosnia, Iraq, but where are they going to get the troops and RAF Reserve when up to 24% of the TA ?? want to resign when their op tour is over????. (I don't know if this figure applies to the RAF RESERVE as well):rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[mbga9pgf]

Maybe the fire service want to lend us a couple of their chaps? You know, return the favour and all....

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Pr00ne.............you Blairite:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[L J R]

Doesn't the castle at Blair Atholl have its own private and legally recognised army - All grey hair and white beard. I also believe that the Beefeaters at the Tower of London are in a kind of military. Maybe we should send those too..

.

[BATCO]

I'm due out of the big sandpit in August. I could stop off on the way home perhaps. I wouldn't even have to change commands (CENTCOM run Horn of Africa as well as Afghan and Eye-rack).

See ya there!

[outlaw51]

LJR,
I think you're referring to the Atholl Highlanders, a whisky-fuelled private army which parades once a year with fearsome Atholl halberds and muskets. It's even got a mechanised section. Soldiers who fall by the wayside, casualties of too many drams, are collected in wheelbarrows and pushed on to the final objective.:O

Spit,
Most of 3 Commando Bde and two of the Para battalions are available, I think. It would, however, have to be a short, "in and out"deployment. There\'s nothing left in the toybox for a continuous roulement. The main problem would be providing medics to support the op.

[Regie Mental]

The figure quoted for the percentage of TA who wish to quit doesn't in my view apply to the RAuxAF. Whilst there were some problems on Telic caused by the regulars expecting some very experienced Regt reserves to do all the mundane tasks whilst they did the exciting stuff, very few voted with their feet (which is a reflection of their dediction). The Medics also had a problem following the decision to not grant those involved in the medevac missions a telic medal.

It should also be pointed out that with some 2300 members the RAuxAF is considerably smaller than the TA.

As for Sudan, is the problem not the numbers of personnel but having sufficient AT to both get them in theatre and supporting them thereafter?

[outlaw51]

While a brigade's-worth of troops could be found, where would the head shed scrape up the medics to support the op. Given the state of the refugees and the conditions on the ground, they'd be the key people in any deployment.

[Grimweasel]

As the BBC states, the effort may be a jonit civil / Mil. one. Maybe the HMG has a reserve civil NHS deployable hospital?

Still, Bangledesh has been ravaged by floods so where does the International community start???

[FJJP]

And would someone tell me how the AT fleet are going to route into the refugee area?

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Why don't yez come and spend a week or two in Lokichokio and find out?:E

Seriously, there's a 1800m strip at Loki and you could use Rumbek as a forward staging area or just operate out of El Obeid or Khkhkh(hack, cough)khkhkhartoum. Sudan govt would have to agree on the latter two, though.....

[BlueWolf]

Has Sudan got some oil or minerals, then?
:confused:

Didn't know that.

[BATCO]

Yes.....see below.

"Natural resources: petroleum; small reserves of iron ore, copper, chromium ore, zinc, tungsten, mica, silver, gold, hydropower. Exports: $2.45 billion (f.o.b., 2003 est.): oil and petroleum products, cotton, sesame, livestock, groundnuts, gum arabic, sugar." (see www.Governments:Sudan)

I would have used the CIA World fact Book but the Yanks here have blocked the site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:confused:

Exact export figure not available but I saw a fugure quoted on ARRSE but couldn't find it when I needed it cos I'm network enabled! (I didn't say capable). And North Sea oil is going fast.

So from one sandpit to another...........? :ok:

[Solid Rust Twotter]

The country's floating on a lake of oil. The Canucks are pumping it as fast as they can before the Septics invade.....:ok:

[BATCO]

CIA World Fact Book

209,100 bbl per day (export)
631.5 million bbl (proven reserves)




If at first you don't succeed .....give up

[Grimweasel]

Well, there you have it...loads of black gold in situ!

When shall I go and get my anti-malarial and jabs then???

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Any intervention in Sudan would, I think, go against the grain of current defence policy.....

1. Deployment of ground forces to protect refugees.

Apart from the obvious issue of what forces would be free, what support would they need? Helicopters? If so, where do you base them? Logistics? Where and how? Medical? Already Overstretched. Air support/air defence - see below.

2. Specialist logistic/medical etc personnel to aid refugees.

Same issues as above.

3. Embargo on oil exports.

This would need UN authority, and would require frigates/destroyers to implement it, backed up by Nimrods (basing and possibly AAR support issues), and possibly submarines acting as ISTAR assets. All these all already overstreched, and will be even more so in future after the latest cuts.

4. No fly zone.

Sudanese aircraft (including MiGs) have been used to attack the black Africans. A no fly zone would be a possible response, but where do you base the aircraft? Could the UK contribute given the decline in fighter numbers? Perhaps carrier based aircraft could be used, but the range would mean tanker support would be needed. What if the Americans are unwilling to play and it falls on other carrier possessing nations? What if UK/European/Western forces suffer air attack - the Sudanese Government has said it will oppose outside forces.

5. Anything without US involvement....

After Somalia, the US are likely to be reluctant to get involved in that part of the world. Therefore the increasing reliance on US support would not help.

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Could be mistaken but I think there may be a problem with Brits entering the Sudan. Not too happy with the old colonial masters. Visa problems or something along those lines, I believe. However, 100 tonnes of armour makes a pretty effective visa......

[LowNSlow]

209,100 bbl / day ain't worth a light. That's only twice the daily capacity of BP's smallest UK field. Don't think that's worth going to war over even by B. Liar's standars.

[Blakey875]

Wouldn't get involved in this one myself, spent 3 months operating from Khartoum with 46 Sqn some 30 years ago. Flying mainly to Wau and Tonj in the South of the country, the civil war was then 10 years old! All this talk about carriers, visas and the like. If you want to go in why not operate from Southern Egypt or call Ghaddaffi's bluff and use one of his southern strips/oasis across the border? Fond memories of Gordon's Dance Hall and the brothel on 12 street (Just looking of course!). I still have my original sword from Omdurman made out of a flattened 45 gall oil drum. Keep out, use threats, leave it to the aid agencies...

[Grimweasel]

BBC this eve.

The UN Security Council has warned the Sudan government that it must halt atrocities by Arab militias in the western Darfur region within 30 days.
A US-drafted resolution demanding that Khartoum disarm the fighters was passed with two abstentions.

The vote was only passed after the US dropped the word "sanctions" and added economic and diplomatic "measures".

But Sudan's information minister has rejected the UN move, according to Reuters news agency.


"Sudan announces its rejection of the Security Council's misguided resolution," Information Minister Al-Zahawi Ibrahim Malik said in a statement quoted by the agency.

And the resolution has been criticised as a "failure" by one major aid agency. The only thing the UN Security Council has delivered is... another 30 days in which civilians will continue to live in fear of being killed or raped

Representative of aid agency in Darfur
Up to 50,000 people have died and more than a million have fled their homes in Darfur.

The Janjaweed, the main Arab militia group allied with the government, has been blamed for mass rapes, killings and burning of villages in Darfur.

The resolution was backed by 13 council members; China and Pakistan abstained.

'Disaster'

US Ambassador John Danforth told the Council after the vote: "The government of Sudan has left us no choice. It has done the unthinkable, it has fostered an armed attack on its own civilian population, it has created a humanitarian disaster.

DARFUR CONFLICT

1m displaced
Up to 50,000 killed
More at risk from disease and starvation
Arab militias accused of ethnic cleansing
Sudan blames rebels for starting conflict


Q&A: Darfur conflict
Sudan's media defiant

"The responsibility for this disaster lies squarely on the government of Sudan," he said.

The newly passed resolution calls on Sudan to make good on promises it made on 3 July to rein in the fighters. It has 30 days to comply.

It calls for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to issue a report also in 30 days on the progress made in each of those areas.

The US removed any specific reference to sanctions in the resolution after objections from seven members - including China, Russia and Pakistan - who believe Khartoum needs more time to act.

But the resolution's sponsors say the substance of the threat remains in the wording of the text.

It notes that the Council "expresses its intention to consider further actions - including measures as provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations - on the government of Sudan, in the event of non-compliance". Article 41 provides for sanctions to be applied.

China and Pakistan remained dissatisfied with the wording. Explaining its abstention, China said it believed measures were unnecessary and Khartoum had been co-operating.


Darfur has been described as the world's worst humanitarian crisis
Aid agencies, meanwhile, charge that the resolution has been fatally weakened by the changes.

"The Security Council have today proved unanimous in their inaction," the representative of one major aid agency working in Darfur, which wanted to remain anonymous, told BBC News Online.

"This watered-down resolution contains no urgency and offers precious little help to the people of Darfur," he said.

"The only thing the UN Security Council has delivered is... another 30 days in which civilians will continue to live in fear of being killed or raped.

"While diplomats sit in New York and procrastinate, the people of Darfur are dying. The government of Sudan will be celebrating yet another failure to call them to account."

'Fear remains'

Meanwhile, the World Food Programme has said it will begin a series of airdrops targeting 85,000 people in isolated regions of West Darfur in three days.

Along with those who have died or have been displaced in the Darfur conflict, an estimated 2.2 million people are in urgent need of food or medical attention.

Ramiro Lopes da Silva, the WFP country director, said that insecurity, heavy rain and logistical challenges were continuing to hamper the work done by humanitarian organisations.

He warned that the climate of fear and intimidation still existed in Darfur.

UK to commit Air Drop assets???

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Interesting Article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/03/usudan.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/08/03/ixportaltop.html)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

This from the Torygraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/14/wsudan14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/14/ixworld.html)

[ROLLERSKATE]

This is another lose lose situation
What is the African Union and fellow muslim countries doing.
From a continent the size of Africa they are planning to send 200 troops as monitors - how impressive!

The African Union objectives are:
To promote the unity and solidarity of African States;
To coordinate and intensify their cooperation and efforts to achieve a better life for the peoples of Africa;
To defend their sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence;
To eradicate all forms of colonialism from Africa; and
To promote international cooperation.

This organisation basically has no interest in their fellow Africans
it is just there way of sticking two fingers up at the west.
Corruption is widespread i.e. the president of Botswana attempt to purchase a Global Express a/c which is worth more than the entire education budget for his country for a year and the President of Mozambiques attack on Tony Blair at their last conference in South africa.

This is a terrible situation and must be stopped but why us again?

[mbga9pgf]

And why again has the UN come up so weakly against this humanitarian disaster? Is it not about time pressure was put on the UN to actually DO something instead of dilly-dally and hope for the best? I personally feel as if they ar waiting, once again, for someone else to pick this one up.

And, athough some liberals may disagree, I think it is fair to say historically, the only language these corrupt governments understand is a threatening with a bloody great big stick... threaten their rule and just watch them tow the line.

[Boy_From_Brazil]

We cannot hope for too much with the Secretary General being an African.

BFB