Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Are you ready for a new Campaign in the Congo?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Are you ready for a new Campaign in the Congo?

Old 2nd Nov 2008, 18:44
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Anglia.
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by StopStart

Whilst my initial post may have been a bit OTT I was, in my defence, a little "worse for wear".

That said, I still stand by my assertion that we of the "developed" countries have something of a duty to help those that cannot help themselves. The vast majority of Africa is run by corrupt or incompetent folk who line their own pockets at the expense of feeding their people. Other than by direct military action or focussed sanctions there's generally neither the political will or popular support to sort those places out. Look at the disaster that is Zimbabwe. I personally don't think those sort of places deserve max effort from UK Plc over and above our own domestic issues.

At the other end of the scale we have situations like Rwanda and Dafur. Incomprehensible numbers of people slaughtered in staggeringly short periods of time. We in the West can stand in mute horror at the industrial slaughter of The Holocaust of Nazi Germany, hunt down those involved and commemorate the dead. Similarly with the mass graves of Bosnia. The authors of both these inhuman acts are however base amateurs when compared with the ruthless efficiency of the Hutu militias et al in Rwanda - the thick end of 1 million people in just under 100 days; that's gotta take some beating. I won't claim to be a scholar of the Rwandan Genocide however I have studied the subject at some length and believe I know what I'm talking about. Words fail me when I try and describe my distaste for the vacuous, spineless Western officials and governments that prevaricated and vacilated whilst up to ten thousand people a day were ruthlessly and efficiently slaughtered.

That was 14 years ago and how quickly people forget. If you genuinely believe that it's easier to sit back and watch from afar, tutting at those "frightful africans" chopping each other up again then so be it. I'm not a righteous do-gooder and in fact consider myself to be just to the right of Genghis Kahn in my political views, but I do still believe that we as civilised, right-thinking people have a duty to help those that cannot help themselves. Yes we're involved in two medium-scale ops and yes we're overstretched. It is my personal opinion, however, that the UK military could make a real difference to the lives of millions of people with only a relatively brief period of additional strain. There are also plenty of NATO countries with no taste for combat ops in Afghanistan etc that could pile in and be "a force for good" there.

Still, perhaps I'm a fantasist and we should in fact reserve our efforts for things like making sure the Olympic Games a great success.

I've always wondered if this had been a church in a western country and those bodies had been a different colour would we have been quicker to react?



Not accusing anyone of racism, just asking the question...


The Gorilla - you and the rest of the country's Daily Mail readership are entitled to your opinions and if I were to be involved in an operation that prevented another genocide I would happily refrain doing it "in your name".

Monty77 - genius post, good effort. Any luck getting the crayon off your monitor screen yet?
Jolly good.
Avitor is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2008, 19:40
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: too close too biap
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
wasnt going to bother butt..

Stop Start, well said that man. I have to be honest and say that Moron77s post did miff me, but I just couldnt be ar$ed to reply to the biffer. However your eloquent and heart felt response has moved me to take a stand and put fingers to keyboard for once. Gorilla get back in your box, we at the coalface will take the strain. You can sit back with your fat feet up, tut tutting saying not in my name . Stop Start with you all the way, which is probably more likely than you realise....
hudjunkie is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2008, 19:46
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm with post 43, go do something REALLY worthwhile but write your own ROE's first.
glad rag is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2008, 19:47
  #44 (permalink)  

Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Your opinion your entitled to it, no need to personal though. I am a Times reader now I am a suit! But when you are there please don't bitch about a lack of kit! We only have limited funds for defence and no one really gives a toss. Some people think the BBC have dredged this up to deflect interest away from the Ross fiasco!

If Afrika be so important how come we haven't sorted out the small problem of Zimbabwewe yet?

Sometimes you guys in the military are your own worst enemies!!

The Gorilla is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2008, 22:38
  #45 (permalink)  
KeepItTidy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Well if they send me to Congo I at least want some up to date jabs first or is that too much to ask.

Hotels , Rates and a cheap Bar would be good as well

As long as them 3 things are in place the British military could take on anyone
 
Old 2nd Nov 2008, 22:48
  #46 (permalink)  

Champagne anyone...?
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: EGDL
Age: 54
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
TG - the reference to the Daily Mail was merely driven by your rather Little Britain-esque comments about "all that lot comin' over ere, stealing our jobs and sponging off our benefits!" I personally hold rather firm beliefs on unbridled immigration and the ease with which the unscrupulous can take advantage of our lily-livered welfare state but I don't believe that's an excuse for a trip off the moral high ground to stick our heads in the sand at the beach.

What I don't like in your original post, and I'm 99.99% certain you didn't mean it, is the inference that by us saving some poor sod and his family from being butchered with machetes we run the risk of said fella then rocking up at Dover a week later to blag a house and benefits. Slightly dodgy ground morally? To save a possible few quid on the welfare state we'd rather look the other way whilst the machetes are unsheathed? Apologies to Mr Eddie Izzard but "Cake or death?" "Er, death please. No wait! Cake!" No brainer, surely?

If Afrika be so important how come we haven't sorted out the small problem of Zimbabwewe yet?
I'm not suggesting we sort out all the ills of the world. The systematic destruction of an economy by a fruitcake despot, whilst generating much human tragedy, is a world away from state radio telling everyone to pop next door and kill their neighbours kids oh and while they're at it who's up for massacaring the local girl's school? Refreshments and transport provided.

Sometimes you guys in the military are your own worst enemies!!
Yeah, that conscience will be the death of me....
StopStart is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2008, 00:01
  #47 (permalink)  

Champagne anyone...?
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: EGDL
Age: 54
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
However, my serious point is that if the UK can deploy in this case then it is unforgiveable that they turned a blind eye 500 miles further south for many years. Family friends with British passports were murdered and many more were driven out and lost everything. If we have to pick our battles, let's choose very carefully. That is all.
Fg Off Max Stout, your earlier comments deserve a response but this is, I believe, a matter of scale. I don't believe one can say we should ignore a genocide because we didn't react to an series of murders, no matter how tragic. 20 white deaths vs 900,000 black ones? That's one hell of an exchange rate. Whilst the murder of anyone, regardless of passport colour, is to be abhorred approximately 1200 UK passport holders were murdered here in the UK last year. Should we bomb London?

Additionally and as alluded to by others, there is the problem at the ease with which a UK intervention could turn pear-shaped very quickly with the "former-colonial-power" card being played against us. There's no way any op down there would be a short term one so you're correct - we need to pick our battles very carefully. I don't know what the answer to Zimbabwe's ills are off the top of my head but I just don't think we can use that as an excuse to do nothing elsewhere....
StopStart is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2008, 02:02
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: nocte volant
Posts: 1,114
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
StopStart,

You obviously have a lot of time on your hands at the moment!
Good posts though

Words fail me when I try and describe my distaste for the vacuous, spineless Western officials and governments that prevaricated and vacilated whilst up to ten thousand people a day were ruthlessly and efficiently slaughtered.
The leaders of western nations will only intervene in a conflict if it suits their economic interests. Most ordinary people are horrifed when told about the horrible retribution meated out to the people of East Timor after the '99 independence vote. They find it hard to belive, however, that the TNI were supported by the government, military and arms manufacturers of The UK/USA/Australia from before the '75 invasion. Then the Oz govt had the gall to take the moral high ground in '99.

Suck eggs, I know;
There is a disconnect between the sentiment of the general populace and the prerogative of government. Government will rarely, if ever act simply in the interests of humanity. This is a big part of why I left the military and discourage others from joining.
Trojan1981 is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2008, 03:02
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,222
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
I agree with stopstart in a way but the Congo is not a British problem, it is a mainland European problem because the Belgians ran it before, not the Brits.

Zimbabwe is a different kettle of fish. As an ex-Rhodesian who has known friends of all colours murdered I know that they need all the help they can get but military action is not the answer. The situation, however you dress it up, is not the same.

In all African countries plus a lot more in the Far East, Central and South America a considerable amount of the country's wealth ends up in foreign bank accounts or property and Zimbabwe is no exception. Should the West take on Zimbabwe then it would be the first of a long list.

Nigeria has been a major oil exporter for decades yet the vast majority of its population are on the breadline, the same for Venezuela and Indonesia. Advanced Middle Eastern coutries are entirely dependant on what the leader decides to hand out. Democracy and accountability as we know it are non-existent.

The United Kingdom has been fortunate in that the various tribes have been seperated by national borders with the unfortunate exception of Northern Ireland. Europe has been dissected and re-assembled for centuries and its history is full of massacres of people in the wrong place at the wrong time. National boundaries in Africa were imposed by the colonialists and cut across innumerable tribal boundaries. It is too easy for a corrupt government to pass the blame for their shortcomings onto another tribe within their jurisdiction.

You can send as many peacekeepers and spent as much money as you like for years and when it stops you can pat yourself on the back. But unless you change the way the countries are run then as soon as you walk out it will start all over again.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2008, 03:09
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NSW
Posts: 113
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Stoppers

Have you been doing reading and writing courses, there are words there that never used to be in your vocabulary.
Good posts though, but having been to both The Congo and DR Congo I think it will take a lot more than 17000 peacekeepers and a herc load of rat packs to sort out the mess.
I'd go again though, given the chance.

2P
2port is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2008, 07:28
  #51 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
A problem with European peace makers is that they can be seen as invaders by both sides.

UN intervention OTOH can mean that African nations can provided peace keepers with the developed nations footing the bill. For the UN to intervene there must be recognised genocide. In Rwanda there was a political will by the US, amongst others, to deny that there was genocide thus stopping UN intervention.

I don't know Africa to any great extent but I can read a map. The DRC would comfortably cover the whole of the western European peninsular, ie south west of the Polish border and including all the blue bits. Just how many troops and how much air support would be need just to sustain the troops?

From the CIA World Facts Book there were 66 million peoples with a median age of 16. There is only 6 cu m of water per head per year.

I know we could say it is impossible so we should not waste resources and lives or that whatever we can do would only be a sticking plaster.

Let us assume that European and UN troops are used. How many would be needed, how would you depoly them?
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2008, 11:36
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well I'm with StopStart on this. There is a UN peace-keeping mandate to uphold peace in Congo. If the existing UN force (made up mainly from poorly equipped and trained African Union troops) is inadequate for the job, then if we want to maintain our permanent place on the UN Security Council, and our generally good worldwide reputation, then we should be at the forefront of reinforcements.

If Afrika be so important how come we haven't sorted out the small problem of Zimbabwewe yet?
Because there is no UN mandate to do so. Whilst I am sure Britain and probably France would support a UN mandate to intervene, China would almost certainly veto, and US would also probably veto. There is virtually no chance of getting a UN mandate to intervene.
CirrusF is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2008, 11:42
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere between hope and despair
Age: 62
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just to reinforce PN's post, when the EU launched its 4000-strong op into Chad/Central African Republic last year, the UN made it clear that follow-on forces in one region would have to have black, and not white, faces. The African Union is keen to be seen patrolling its own back yard, without white intervention on the ground. Capabilities, effect etc are a whole different debate though...
Epimetheus is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2008, 11:56
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,222
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Because there is no UN mandate to do so
You wouldn't get one either, irrespective of what China or the US thiink. It's not the UN's job to forcibly invade a country because its leadership have steamrollered it into bankruptcy even though there is political violence as part of it. An example I can think of is the Solomon Islands where the SI government appealed for foreign assistance to retake control of the country. The Australians and New Zealanders did, and they are still there.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2008, 12:01
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Anglia.
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's all academic isn't it! Nice to read the views of those in the frame but, as always, they will do as they are told.

..unless things have changed! Have they?
Avitor is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2008, 12:49
  #56 (permalink)  

Champagne anyone...?
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: EGDL
Age: 54
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Trojan1981 -
The leaders of western nations will only intervene in a conflict if it suits their economic interests
Never was a truer word spoken however I think failure to act yet again would actually play against them politically, with or without there being any tangible economic return. Repeated failure to act over any of the myriad tragadies that together make Africa what it is does, I suspect, have a cumulative effect on the populace of, say, the UK. That can then be used as a political weapon by the opposition etc with which to beat the Government. I rather cynically agree that no Government will ever go out of it's way to do anything on a purely humanitarian/philanthropic basis; there is always at least one eye on the polls (obviously) and perhaps another on their own, personal standing and job security. With that in mind, perhaps the fear that doing nothing may harm the standing of the Government in the eyes of the electorate may prompt them into action. Who knows.

I think my original grumbling was directed at those on here, supposedly in the military, who seemed unable to see past the end of their own noses. Perhaps not everyone in the military shares my view that there's to more military life than just "blowin' **** up" and that we, as a force, have more to offer than just our gridsquare redecoration and landscaping services.

2port -
it will take a lot more than 17000 peacekeepers and a herc load of rat packs to sort out the mess
You're not wrong fella but how much do the various factions involved in all the lunacy there count on us thinking it all too hard? They're not the 3rd Shock Army and could be fairly easily disabused of their militaristic notions with a few well placed PGMs and a demonstration of political and military willpower that this time we weren't going to simply be the ones sweeping up the dance floor after the party was over.

PN - this isn't about wading into the DRC as a whole as it is indeed an enormous place. The "troubles" (rubbish word) causing the current issues relate to a relatively small area around Goma, bordering Rwanda. Indeed the problems of today can be traced directly back to the fallout of the 1994 Rwandan genocide & subsequent routing of the Hutu army and their Interahamwe chums. I'm no strategist but, as stated above, a demonstration of intent backed perhaps limited military action against the belligerents might make them think twice. I suspect those with the most to gain there are relying on the West to vacillate as they have done in the past, leaving them to get on with their plans.

The UN cannot be seen to getting involved with the internal politics of countries unless mandated to. They won't get mandated to unless in very specific cases, one of which is genocide. This was how the US in particular wormed their way out of allowing the UN mandate in Rwanda to be expanded beyond treaty monitoring. The first few minutes of this clip show the infamous State Department press conference where they squirmed out of using the word "genocide" to avoid having to get involved. If the west are prepared to go to that degree of semantic sleight of hand to avoid involvement then the UN will never get anywhere. That said, don't get me started on the UN...

It's all very well for the UN to want to see black faces manning their African ops rather than white ones but concerns for the sensibilities of the locals shouldn't outweight operational need and/or expediency. This isn't to denigrate the African Forces, indeed the Sierra Leonean forces, for example, in UNAMIR in 94 were regarded as being very capable, reliable troops. They just didn't have the kit. We in the west can easily force multiply existing DRC MONUC forces with a just a little rotary/airlift/CAS if white faces are the ground are just too bitter a pill to swallow.

It's all academic isn't it! Nice to read the views of those in the frame but, as always, they will do as they are told.
Yup, it certainly is just all academic! As is pretty much everything posted on the pages of Pprune. The military will indeed just crack on and do what it's told.
That doesn't mean though that a few of us aren't to allowed to think that some of what we're asked to do is bollocks and that some of what we're not asked to do isn't
StopStart is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2008, 15:59
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GONE BY 2012
Age: 51
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Didn't the mighty US of A come a cropper trying to sort out a similar problem in Somolia? Being 'peacekeepers' in the middle of a civil war alongside ineffective UN troops?

There has to be a concerted effort from all the UN parties - I would suggest that european troops would be seen as invaders and would probably make the situation worse and maybe unite the warring factions.

I don't think we can get involved in a purely 'humanitarian' role in this part of the world - life is cheap and I for one don't want any pictures of 'Black Hawk Down' style incidents with British troops.

The UN is a toothless tiger - it's up to the AU to sort out their own backyard. We neither have the will or the resources to contemplate becoming involved in the Congo.
Truckkie is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2008, 16:26
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Only a thought. I know it's a total non-starter, God only know's why I'm writing this, but....

How about this for a solution.

Re-write the borders of African countries on a Tribal basis rather than an enforced colonial/geographical base.


Let the tribes sort it out.
taxydual is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2008, 16:34
  #59 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by StopStart
PN - this isn't about wading into the DRC as a whole as it is indeed an enormous place. The "troubles" (rubbish word) causing the current issues relate to a relatively small area around Goma, bordering Rwanda. Indeed the problems of today can be traced directly back to the fallout of the 1994 Rwandan genocide & subsequent routing of the Hutu army and their Interahamwe chums.

The UN cannot be seen to getting involved with the internal politics of countries unless mandated to. They won't get mandated to unless in very specific cases, one of which is genocide. This was how the US in particular wormed their way out of allowing the UN mandate in Rwanda to be expanded beyond treaty monitoring.
My OU course made that point and even used an audio clip from Bill Clinton expressing his regret at not taking action when he could.

We in the west can easily force multiply existing DRC MONUC forces with a just a little rotary/airlift/CAS if white faces are the ground are just too bitter a pill to swallow.
The crucial word here is west and the use of helicopters from those countries not committed elsewhere.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2008, 17:46
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reference material:

For those interested in the Congo pre Rwandan genocide have a read of King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild (SBN-13/EAN: 9780618001903; ISBN-10: 0618001905) and now a documentary film: King Leopold's Ghost

"n the 1880s, as the European powers were carving up Africa, King Leopold II of Belgium seized for himself the vast and mostly unexplored territory surrounding the Congo River. Carrying out a genocidal plundering of the Congo, he looted its rubber, brutalized its people, and ultimately slashed its population by ten million--all the while shrewdly cultivating his reputation as a great humanitarian. Heroic efforts to expose these crimes eventually led to the first great human rights movement of the twentieth century, in which everyone from Mark Twain to the Archbishop of Canterbury participated. King Leopold's Ghost is the haunting account of a megalomaniac of monstrous proportions, a man as cunning, charming, and cruel as any of the great Shakespearean villains. It is also the deeply moving portrait of those who fought Leopold: a brave handful of missionaries, travelers, and young idealists who went to Africa for work or adventure and unexpectedly found themselves witnesses to a holocaust. Adam Hochschild brings this largely untold story alive with the wit and skill of a Barbara Tuchman. Like her, he knows that history often provides a far richer cast of characters than any novelist could invent. Chief among them is Edmund Morel, a young British shipping agent who went on to lead the international crusade against Leopold. Another hero of this tale, the Irish patriot Roger Casement, ended his life on a London gallows. Two courageous black Americans, George Washington Williams and William Sheppard, risked much to bring evidence of the Congo atrocities to the outside world. Sailing into the middle of the story was a young Congo River steamboat officer named Joseph Conrad. And looming above them all, the duplicitous billionaire King Leopold II. With great power and compassion, King Leopold's Ghost will brand the tragedy of the Congo--too long forgotten--onto the conscience of the West."
angelorange is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.