Can We expect a pullout in Iraq to go to Darfur?

[VinRouge]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/31/wdarfur101.xml


In a speech at the United Nations headquarters in New York yesterday, Mr Brown announced Britain and France had tabled an urgent UN resolution in a bid to end the brutal conflict. Fresh peace talks between the Sudanese government and rebel forces will be held at the start of next month in a bid to secure a ceasefire.
advertisement

A number of British troops will be sent in with the new force. However, Downing Street stressed they would carry out the same logistical roles that a small contingent of British personnel already performs in Darfur.
Mr Brown also called on world leaders to take "emergency action" to ensure that they meet the Millennium Development Goals that were agreed in 2000.

[Squirrel 41]

>Rant mode: ON

Let's be clear about what is - and has been for three years - going on in Darfur: it's the systematic murder and rape of an ethnic group by the Government of Sudan through the regular military and their associated proxy forces, the janjaweed. According to the UN, 200,000 people are dead, 250,000 women have been raped - which is one rape every 6 mins 17 secs 24/7 for three years - and there are massive refugee camps in Chad and CAR full of displaced people.

There is a word for this: genocide. And we have the legal authority to intervene - indeed are required to do so by Article 1 of the 1948 Genocide Convention - without the say so of the Security Council. Destroying the Sudanese AF which is a key part of the genocide campaign would have been a good start. Indeed, if the Sudanese Government doesn't desist, then we should go ahead and do this.

So this new "hybrid" African Union/UN force is a good, if belated, start. And yes, we should be in there protecting people from their rapacious (and allegedly Islamic - remember where Bin Laden was before Afghanistan?) government. We've waited too long!

>Rant Mode: OFF

S41

[nigegilb]

There is only one place British troops are going after an Iraq pull-out and that is Afghanistan. Because that war is still "winnable" according to CDS, who also said in the same sentence that it was "loseable" as well. I assume he has finally opened his history book.

[Green Flash]

I wonder how 'winnable' or 'loseable' CDS thinks Darfur is.:(

[blogger]

RAF to be renamed WPF ........ World Police Force

Send back the Typhoon's! The World Police Force requires transport AC, Helicopters and man power. The things we are most short of.

Why does Brown promise to police the world when the UK forces are broken and bust and getting smaller every day :ugh:

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

Given the size of the MIG30 order allegedly placed by Iran (along with AAR capability) I think some nice shiny Typhoons to escort all those helicopters and transports would be reassuring...

[Solid Rust Twotter]

No reason why not. The Sud is floating on a sea of oil after all...

[Climebear]

No reason why not. The Sud is floating on a sea of oil after all...

Exactly why the Chinese have a large presense in Southern Sudan.

Cyprus aside, the UK does not generally commit formed units of troops to UN operations. It meets its commitment to the UN by paying quite a large share of any UN operation's costs. Again Cyprus aside, in general terms the UK will try and fill key staff appointments in the UN missions it does have a contribution in (see UNOMIG, MONUC, UNMIL, UNIOSL, and UNMIS) in order to maximise the effect of their deployment. This has been the case in Sudan to date with a very small contingent in UNMIS (that has operated in Southern Sudan) and an even smaller contingent in the EU mission to assist the African Union Mission in Sudan that has been struggling in Darfur.

[Wensleydale]

Climebear,
I remember being involved in UN Operations over Bosnia for many years in the 1990s involving ammassing over 700 Hours flying per year and 200+ sorties. (Before NATO took over after the fall of Sebreniza). So actually we do support the UN with formed Units.....:=

[Climebear]

Wensleydale

Your comment is in the past tense - whereas mine is in the present (since we got bogged down in 2 medium-scale warfighting operations) tense.

[Yeomen dai]

Looks like this was a no go then.

[cazatou]

I went to Khartoum a couple of times 30 years ago -it could best be described then as "Ramshackle".

I shudder to think what it would be like nowadays after 30 years of conflict.

General Gordon's HQ was interesting - nowhere near as imposing as in the Film!!

[Two's in]

No clear Military objective, highly political, hidden agendas at every turn, allies one day enemies the next, Heads of State grandstanding on the lives of the unsuspecting - Darfur has to be next.

[minigundiplomat]

Which units does the Telegraph reccommend we deploy?

[elderlypart-timer]

One of the unique aspects of the Darfur conflict is the extensive use of aircraft by the Sudanese Govt to attack its own population. That's why having the option to rapidly establish air superiority could be a real advantage to whatever additional capability is provided to the peacekeeping force in Darfur. There lots of combat platforms available to support this but precious little in terms of air-to-air ISTAR assets. That's where we come in.

The one asset that has not seen operational service in recent conflicts are the E3Ds at Waddington. Perhaps they don't have the right types and numbers of air and ground crew. Perhaps they don't have the right amount of spare parts. But if they can be deployed, then why not? Just because the Govt thinks its a good idea, does that make it automatically a bad idea?