Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers some recommendations on what to do about Darfur:
"Genocide continues to rage in Darfur" -- from today's headlinesDarfur should be a place upon which Infidel attention should be focused, and much made of the situation there, as it is so clear-cut. Two points can be made, and action -- by the United States, which seems fated to do the work for everyone -- could help after another few months of false rescue by the Muslim troops in Nigeria.
To wit:
Let Darfur be used to hammer in two propositions:
1) Islam is not a universalist religion, but is a vehicle for Arab imperialism. This has been noted by Ibn Warraq, Anwar Shaikh, and many Muslims -- among the Berbers, the Malays, and others. The requirement that one learn Arabic to read the Qur'an, or at least to memorize the Qur'an in Arabic (as so many Urdu-speaking Pakistanis do in the madrasas); the adoption of Arabic names (including those "Sayeeds" in Pakistan -- the name indicates descent from the Prophet); the imposition of the Sunna (the ways, the customs, of Muhammad and his Companions), which inflicts on non-Arab peoples the ways of the Arabs; and the history of Arab aggression against non-Arab Muslims (Kurds, Berbers, blacks) should be emphasized. Darfur is now well-publicized as a place of organized massacre of Arabs against non-Arab Muslims. Let that, and its imperialist, supremacist implications, become as much a focus of world attention as possible.
2) Use Darfur to make black Africa less inclined to succumb to this creed that would impel them to jettison their culture and reject their history. Darfur may be taken to stand for the whole history of Arab exploitation of black Africa. The Arab slave trade, of which Zanzibar became the eastern entrepot, began centuries earlier, and ended later, than the European slave trade. Actually, it has not even ended, because once the Europeans left Mali, Mauritania, the Sudan, the Arab enslavement of black Africans was renewed. Also, the Arab slave trade was much more devastating than that of the Europeans, especially because many slaves were castrated before they were shipped thousands of miles, and the mortality rate was very high.The Biafran War, a war as Colonel Ojukwu said (in the Ohiara Declaration in 1969) was a fight by the Christian Ibo against "jihad" (Ojukwu's word) ended because the entire Western world ignored the war of the Muslims in the north to retain control of Nigeria, and the oil that existed in the Christian south. Only two states -- Ghana and Israel -- recognized Biafra. But just as Muslims in northern Nigeria have used the oil wealth to pay for their military regime that allows the northern Muslims to dominate the much more industrious and entrepreneurial south, and to use southern oil to prop up northern, Muslim supremacy, the Arabs in the north of the Sudan intend to use the oil wealth – which lies under the southern, black, non-Muslim part of the Sudan -- to continue to massacre all blacks including those who are not regarded as Arabs.
In Mali and Mauritania blacks are still enslaved by Arabs. Indeed, the slave trade continues still -- that is, blacks are still shipped to the Arabian peninsula, and though slavery was formally abolished in 1962 in Saudi Arabia, the fact that the Qur'an sanctions slavery means that in the Muslim world, as Saudi clerics have recently emphasized, slavery must continue, for it is sanctioned by God, the God of Islam, the only God that counts.
And let the Darfur folly and U.N. fiasco lead to action by American troops. No need to repeat here what has been posted many times. Right now the "Nigerian contingent" of Muslim-officered troops, and almost entirely Muslims, are likely to follow whatever secret understandings were arrived at by Nigeria, Egypt, Libya, and the Sudan, all designed to create a facade of action that will be inaction -- while the massacres and displacements continue. This will all be in order to head off what is really feared, and what should take place -- an American intervention. The declaration that American troops will stay to protect the people from genocide and that they will leave when a referendum on independence can be arranged in the southern Sudan and in Darfur -- well, what can the Arab League, the U.N., the E.U. say about that, when the black Africans will so obviously welcome American troops? Will they denounce us for not permitting the 20-year-old genocidal campaign in the southern Sudan to continue? Or to allow it to be enlarged in Darfur? Might be just a bit embarrassing. And in this country, would the Democrats wish to bewail such a move -- earning the fury of the Black Caucus and others whose support they need?
Iraq, at this point, is a misallocation of resources. But the Sudan -- well, the Sudan would require far less (a few thousand troops). And as for those famous bases America wants to have somewhere in the region, since it foolishly pressured Israel to give up the Sinai, the perfect place for such bases, on a long-term lease? Well, the southern and western Sudan are within range, as the F-16s fly, of both North Africa and the Middle East.
Perhaps there is something wrong with this idea. Perhaps one has missed something, and just doesn't understand.
Well, what could that be? Might it be hat it makes too much obvious sense?
Good ideas!!
OT and on BMI Airlines.
On BMI aeroplanes, monitors ie the ones that show the location of the plane in flight, continuously show an updated version of the direction to Mecca.
I'm sure that many Hindus, Jews and others of no religious inclination, find this pandering to islam, highly offensive - particularly as this the very religion whose adherents, have made flying such a pleasure for one and all.
Ah, Hugh… (long sigh). We’ve been down this road before, but I guess we’ll go down it again.
The first 7/8 or so of your piece is excellent, dead-on, no disagreement from me. But those last three paragraphs are just so completely uninformed, that you do a great disservice to your argument.
The logistics are tremendous in that part of the world. The distances are great, the utter lack of resources at the receiving end means that everything has to be brought in, and how? By rail? By truck? Neither are possible, and from what port at that? Port Sudan? Surely you gest. Well, we could base in Ethiopia, and go north from there. Oh, sorry, hit that rail/road/port problem again. In fact, since Ethiopia has no coastline to begin with, we’re starting there with two strikes against us. I suppose we could start in Mombasa and drive across, what, 750 miles? 1,000 miles? Try 1,400 miles in a straight line, easily over 2,000 by hazardous road. And of course, no Johnny Jihad will get the idea of, oh, sabotaging bridges, burning whatever fuel may actually be on that route, or even ambushing the column. After all, three quarters of the column will have to be fuel-carriers just to get the rest through. Our other options, access through Egypt, Libya, or the cross-Africa route from Nigeria through Mali to Sudan, are worse.
As for basing F-16s, don’t forget to base their supplies, fuel, ordnance, maintainers, etc., as well as the tankers, KC-135s or KC-10s, plus search and rescue aircraft and personnel, and all the generators, diesel fuel for them, and all the support personnel from pay clerks to intel types, too. And since you’re talking Air Force, don’t forget to budget for the golf course. Seriously, no F-16 is going to make it anywhere that matters from western or southern Sudan without a lot of tanker support. And the “few thousand troops” estimate is baseless and ridiculous. At least familiarize yourself with the problem of tooth and tail before you make such speculations.
There are cold, hard reasons that the US hasn’t been militarily involved in that part of the world, based on certain geographical realities that we don’t have ways of overcoming yet. We’ve looked at the problem over and over again, for decades now, and it doesn’t get any better with time.
Perhaps a better solution would be a steady drumbeat of attention from an executive branch or DOD podium, although DoS is where the drumbeat should begin. Surely you remember during the beginning of OIF, when every day GEN Myers, GEN Abizaid, SECDEF Rumsfeld, or that PAO general from CENTCOM held a press conference, discussed the day’s events, answered questions, ridiculed the foolish questions, and in general shaped the discussion on the news? Why not a similar effort, putting the Press Secretary, the VP, SECDEF, various regional military commanders, or undersecretaries of defense, State Dept flacks (I’m not counting on SECSTATE herself), etc., up on a podium every second or third day, discussing the role of Islam in Darfur, in the genocide in southern Sudan, in ongoing violence in Northern Nigeria, in Aceh and East Timor, in Chechnya and the rest of the Caucasus, in southern Thailand, in Bangladesh, in Kashmir, in the nuclear development program of Iran—really, the list of topics is as wide as the Ummah! Undertake a process of educating the American people about the breadth and depth of our war and its future, and the nature of all the threats facing us, not just the terrorist ones.
Ah, perhaps I’ve partaken of the same draughts as you have, and have begun to dream again, of what might be…
Hugh, I'm not happy with your analysis. Not happy one bit. I read it; read it twice. Oh sure you make good points, but you missed the biggie: the root cause of the conflict . . . the illegal, coloniast occupation(not equal to but worse than the Nazis) ISRAELI speaking of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Let me explain. Hugh, Muslims are peaceful people . . . and they love us 'the people of the book' . . . Muslims are looking towards an inner 'character arc' or a heroic inner journey called Jihad. But, the brutal Israeli occupation is stiring things up. If only those pesky Jews . . . . Wait, no Jews in the Sudan? 14 in Thailand you say? 2000 out of a billion in India? None in Pakistan? How about Iraq? I recently read there were a teaming mob of 14 Jews in Baghdad! 14 Jews must be up to something, like raising Abu Zacharwi's blood pressure(he's a Palestinian you know). Bali is loaded with Jews--about 20 or so. I've also heard rumours there's a new deli in Somalia serving Kreplach soup. No wonder Black Hawk Down land is such a bad place. You see, Hugh, your analysis doesn't look at the root causes. Just tongue and cheek. By the way, I note that some Hasidic sect just ran over 100 of its own in New York, or was that a militant Catholic sect in Rome, or could there have been a Islamic stampede in Mecca??? I don't believe it . . . the Jews must have arranged the parking.
What's significant about Darfur is that only a tiny percentage of the infidel public knows that this "regional conflict" is a matter of Moslems predating non-Moslems, an Edge Nation expanding the border of Dar al Islam.
TERRORIZE ASSAULT RAPE EXPULSE ROB MURDER GUT LET'S SPREAD THE ISLAM YEAH
Islam is doing great. Performance-wise, you'd have to give them an A+ right now.
1) The Moslems have major Edge Nation operations going on several fronts (Sudan, Nigeria, Thailand, Phillipines, Ossetia, and others) with no public awareness or protest.
2) The Moslems are reformatting Western democracies into early stage Dar al Harb platforms --- mainly by adjusting language and standards --- again, with no pubilc awareness or protest.
TERRORIZE ASSAULT RAPE EXPULSE ROB MURDER GUT LET'S SPREAD THE ISLAM YEAH
In other words, the Moslems are now able to do the unspeakable in the wide open. They are able to control the agenda and most communications channels.
They are making the Bolsheviks look like rank amatuers.
I have to agree with Longtime Lurker concerning the impracticality of bases in the Sudan. While I find JW/DW be excellent, even inspirational, in its clear-headed analysis of the ideological danger we face, it often falls down when discussing military issues (as do most venues of public and academic discourse).
The logistics of moving armies is formidable. Remember, it took 6 months to position the armies (without opposition) for the first Gulf War, and almost as long for the second. It is appalling to hear foolish discussions (not, that I remember, at JW/DW), for instance, about parachuting a whole army into the mountains of Afghanistan (into unfamiliar terrain, at night) to cut off Bin Laden at Tora Bora.
For a variety of practical reasons, air assets of all the military services are based predominantly on short-range aircraft, like the F-16, the F-18, and helicopters. If military airpower is to be effective at bringing force to bear in an extended conflict, the transit time to target has be minimized and the on-station time has to be maximized. That means basing air assets as close to the action as possible (like in Iraq, for instance?).
Limitations in military logistics were the fundamental reason that the U.S. had to keep troops and planes in Europe all those years of the Cold War, despite the huge expense of it all and the sometimes friction that ensued with the local populations and political leaders. Likewise, military logistics is an unavoidable consideration in every decision on what to do in the Middle East.
I don't know what the grand strategy should be there. I will allow that maybe (and maybe not) the consistently brilliant Hugh is right about leaving Iraq totally (except for the Kurdish area) and quickly. But I do know that Sudan is not going to work as an alternative military staging base.
"a steady drumbeat of attention from an executive branch or DOD podium, although DoS is where the drumbeat should begin. Surely you remember during the beginning of OIF, when every day GEN Myers, GEN Abizaid, SECDEF Rumsfeld, or that PAO general from CENTCOM held a press conference, discussed the day’s events, answered questions, ridiculed the foolish questions, and in general shaped the discussion on the news? Why not a similar effort, putting the Press Secretary, the VP, SECDEF, various regional military commanders, or undersecretaries of defense, State Dept flacks (I’m not counting on SECSTATE herself), etc., up on a podium every second or third day, discussing the role of Islam in Darfur, in the genocide in southern Sudan, in ongoing violence in Northern Nigeria, in Aceh and East Timor, in Chechnya and the rest of the Caucasus, in southern Thailand, in Bangladesh, in Kashmir, in the nuclear development program of Iran—really, the list of topics is as wide as the Ummah! Undertake a process of educating the American people about the breadth and depth of our war and its future, and the nature of all the threats facing us, not just the terrorist ones."
-- from a posting by "longtime lurker" above
What an excellent idea.
As for armchair-generalling, I will defer to those who know. I would have thought, given the primitiveness of those be-camelled Janjaweed -- that the American planes could, possibly from aircraft carriers, possibly from a nice base in nice Ethiopia.
Yes, Ethiopia, where Europeans once placed the fabled Christian kingdom of Prester John, the kingdom whose ruler, from the other side of threatening Islam, would join forces with European Christendom -- a myth, expressive of a deep desire.
Ethiopia, land of black hopes, and memories -- Rastafarians in Jamaica "combing marijuana out of their hair" (Robert Lowell), and Marcus Garvey's dreams, and the place where the Ras Tafari himself, the Negus, Haile Selassie, tried to hold off Mussolini at Adowa, and whose speech at the League of Nations is here to be recalled, and then of course the non-response from the League that demonstrated that it was a useless body -- just as useless, if not quite so immoral (the League was useless against Fascism, butat least was not infiltrated by Fascists, in contradistinction to the U.N. which has steadily been infiltrated by sympathizers and agents (by no means all of the Muslims) of what may be called the Islamintern International -- google "Edward Mortimer" and "Jihad Watch").
What about some planes, bombing Janjaweed in Darfur, and possibly Sudanese army installations, farther north? And what would it take, really, to wipe out every Sudanese plane and helicopter? How could the U.N. object to coming to the aid of helpless, Third-World black villagers? Who at the assorted NGOs would be able, with a straight face, to denounce the intervention? What better way to assure black African Christians that Help Is On the Way, as they have been under siege for decades, and have not forgotten the West's abandonment of Biafra and its Christians under Col. Ojukwu, fighting against that Jihad, the northern Muslims aided in that war by Egyptian pilots, strafing Ibo villages. What better way to demonstrate yet again -- as Kurdistan does, as the Berber riots in the Kabyle do -- that Arab Muslims feel free to harry, persecute, and kill, non-Arab Mulims. What better way to demonstrate to the black populations in the Western world, so obviously targetted for campaigns of Da'wa (for Islam is presented as a non-Western -- i.e. non-white -- religion, untainted by colonialism, when in fact Islam is a vehicle for the most successful imperialism and colonialism in history, that of the Arabs, for it convinces people to forget their own history).
And what better way to remind Egypt that it had better lay off Ethiopia about its planned, and necesary, and justified, diversion of the headwaters of the Nile for irrigation projects?
Taking this all into account, a little talk every other day -- as "longtime lurker" suggests --- will be good, but should be supplemented, by those who know about these things and how to do them, with help from above. On a Wing and a Prayer. The prayers and hopes for a "solution" will come from Washington. The wings will be on those American planes, flying high or low -- as the occasion permits and the need dictates.
On BMI aeroplanes, monitors ie the ones that show the location of the plane in flight, continuously show an updated version of the direction to Mecca.
Goodness DP111, the last time I flew with them it was to Guernesey and there was nothing like that. How times have changed, and not for the better. They are definitely after the piastras these days. I wonder who their major shareholders are?
Hugh, you tease me with images of F-15s (should be F-14s, but don't get me started) moving supersonic over janjaweed camps, camels and horses scattering everywhere (they use camels for general travel, save the horses for fighting), followed by A-10s moving in quietly to waste whatever was left over (the Iraqis in the First Gulf War called the A-10s "silent death," because they wouldn't know they were coming until the cannon opened up on them). Seriously, if good targeting was available, a single carrier air wing could finish off the janjaweed in a day or so, forever--if they could only get there. There are military options available, but the basing option isn't a good one.
I yield to you. I did do riflery and archery in Summer Camp. Even more fun than pottery. I can't remember if, the first year, I was a Chipmunk or a Rabbit. The next year we were all divided into groups named after Indians. I got to be a Micmac, or as they like to write it in hyper-sensitive Canada, a Miqm'aq. Or something.
I suppose that doesn't make me as much of an expert as all those grand strategists at My Weekly Standard.
But I'm trying.
Were it not for the book review sections, I would probably drop all my subscriptions to National Review, Weekly Standard, American Spectator, and Reason. From standing athwart history yelling stop, they are scared as a churchmouse now to even mention Islam as a threat to the West and America. Reason has become thoroughly unhinged regarding security, but National Review has been the greatest disappointment. I eagerly look forward to my monthly New Criterion, however, and can hardly wait to dig into this forthcoming edition on the suicide of the West.
I have great respect for the Kagans in their scholarship of past wars, but like Hanson, they are missing the boat on this one. And Gerecht was useful five years ago, but he's also missed the boat with his obsession about the Shia as the pillars of Iraqi republicanism. So no matter what my criticisms of your military planning capabilities, you are still doing better than the published "experts."
Donald Kagan, and Kristol/Himmelfarb, are one thing. The figli di papa are quite another.
"Were it not for the book review sections, I would probably drop all my subscriptions to National Review, Weekly Standard, American Spectator, and Reason."
Go to the nearest large library. Find back issues of "Encounter." You won't regret it.
And while you are selectively reading through The New Criterion, see how the new awareness of Islam plays out -- especially as regards Eric Ormsby, who along with Irwin (just about to come out with a book most unfavorably disposed toward Said) has been an appreciator of Islam in the High Aesthetic Line. Even tried to stop a certain book from being published. Let's see how long that High Aesthetic Line holds up.
I got to be a Micmac, or as they like to write it in hyper-sensitive Canada, a Miqm'aq.
Have I mentioned the Qur'an lately?
Islam is not a universalist religion, but is a vehicle for Arab imperialism.
THe words BY PROXY should be added.
Arab imperialism makes use of NON Arab muslims to advance and deceive the Infidel.
It is plainly evident in nigh on all conflicts today and in recent History.
Hugh,
Longtime Lurker is correct about your proposal being a logistics nightmare. May I propose a more longterm geo-political solution.
1.) Recognize immediately South Sudan and Darfur as soveriegn independent nations. Despite the US brokered "end" to the Sudanese "Civil War" the Khartoum regime continues its reign of genocide. The tragic death of President John Garang (under very mysterious circumstances) should be enough to declare Sudan in non-compliance.
2.) Arm and train local Darfuris and South Sudanese, giving them the means to effectively defend themselves. This is logistically a lot easier than an invasion. The US, Russia, Israel, and several European nations all have great ability to train local militias.
Beyond this we approach a vary dangerous historical dilemna. The United States is already at the same point of imperial over-reach that the Soviets were at around 1976. On more similtaneous military adventure could well do to the US what the ill-fated Afghan Adventure did to the Soviets in the 1980s.
It's better to give the oppressed peoples of the world the training and weapons so they can effectively fight their own battles.
hi can anybody point me to the un reports that give the figures quoted in the miami herald article? its just that im arguing about darfur with muslims right now. (and it looks like a hell of a lot more muslims have been killed there than in iraq)
I still find it difficult to believe that the American troops can be all over the mountainous areas of Afghanistan, and yet cannot empty the Sudanese arsenals of whatever they may possess, and to provide further protection to the displaced inhabitants of Darfur, and the survivors of persecution in the southern Sudan. If troops are over-stretched, remove them from Iraq, where they are now getting in the way of the desired outcome, if that desired outcome is rightly defined, and move them to the Sudan. A line in the sand kind of thing. Here, Dar al-Islam gets pushed back. And in Europe, too, Indifels will begin to get ideas. Look always for opportunities to give Infidels ideas. The more ideas they get, the more they are shaken up to consider new possiblities -- hey, what's this Benes Decree that keeps being mentioned at JW by someone, anyway? -- the better.
Hugh, if Afghanistan and Iraq are bad ideas, we ought to stay out of Sudan. Again, I say that we wait and see.
(1) Size/logistics. Remember, Sudan is roughly the size of the entire United States east of the Mississippi River. It's a huge policing job, and we have absolutely no guarantee that anyone will welcome us. If we have problems pacifying California-sized Iraq (although, at the risk of sounding cold, our losses there have been paltry compared with other modern wars), we'll have many, many more in Sudan. Further, Sudan, like Iraq, is a very short trip for any terrorists lurking in Sa'udi Arabia, Egypt, Eretria, or Libya.
(2) Internal divisions of the Islamic world. The Darfur conflict between Arab and Fur Muslims is just one more example of how any civilization/religion that claims a billion members worldwide is bound to exhibit a lot of internal diversity, with all the attendant possibilities for mutual discord. It's happening everywhere where strongman rule collapses (and collapse it must, given the mortality of us all); as the Shi'ite-Sunnite, Arab-Kurd conflicts in Iraq, and Tajik-Pashtun conflicts in Afghanistan show.
I have long argued that no single Islamic state can possibly form the core of a new superpower or bloc to challenge the USA; and that groups of states will also have their problems coalescing, as witness the attempts at Arab unity back in the 1950's. Further, Muslims are very good at fighting each other, as witness how they had some rather sanguinary struggles over the Caliphate almost as soon as Muhammad's corpse was cold. Along this line, the fact that certain groups in Iran and Algeria are starting to experiment with non-Islamic religions in the wake of those contries' radical Islamicist experiments suggests that Islam might not be as immune to outside influence as some of us suppose.
(3) Is Afghanistan easy? If mountainous, ideal-for-guerrilla-warfare Afghanistan has been relatively easy for the US, it's probably because the CIA called in a lot of the accounts it had with various erstwhile anti-Soviet mujaheddin factions. I won't live long enough to know if this is the case, but, Hugh, if you're a relatively young man, you might see that I'm right fifty years from now, when they declassify a lot of the documents.
(4) However, it might be worth our while--and everyone else's--to recognize portions of Sudan that secede. The USA has spent just too much blood and treasure in a fruitless attempt to maintain untenable stati quo--aka, we've tried to keep history from happening. True, we have no problems with the current set of borders, but if those within those currently-recognized borders cannot remain together, we will not sacrifice ourselves in order to preserve the penny-pinching mood of the British colonial office when it decided that it would keep the erstwhile Anglo-Egyptian Sudan united after independence.
Wasn't Ormsby the author of the recent piece on the beautiful language of the Koran? I figured I'd give TNC a pass on that one because of their track record, but I can't separate the aesthetics of the koran from its content, any more than I can separate the aesthetics of Mapplethorpe's photography from its content. Still, the loss of Europe can't be separated from the advance of Islam, so this forthcoming issue could be interesting.
Our ability to move in and out of Afghanistan stretches us farther than most would believe, since it is done almost exclusively by airlift. We couldn't be there if we relied on Pakistan for airspace passage exclusively, and we rely heavily on our Eastern European friends. The longest leg we have to fly to get into Afghanistan is pretty short compared to what we would have to fly to get into Darfur or southern Sudan. This is a problem I was first assigned to work in 1992, so it's not new to me. There are other options, thinking not professionally, but as a hack in my kitchen--target Sudanese military facilities until they rein in the janjaweed, for example; arm and train resistance forces for another example; obvious military and economic support to the Ethiopians would go a long way to disturb their northern neighbor, and it could be contingent on demonstrable Sudanese concessions. You have in the past mentioned the Chinese presence in Sudan these days, which greatly complicates things--the last thing we need is the Chinese to cause trouble for us in response to perceived threats to their investments in Sudan--but it's worth noting that Sudan is extremely vulnerable to that pesky sabotage of their oil pipelines. A boycott of Sudanese oil would be useless, even if broadly accepted, but they would be in deep trouble if it couldn't reach Port Sudan, and it really wouldn't affect global markets much. I think, though, you hit on something key in your first post. The Sudanese government is terrified of direct US intervention, and has a tremendous disinformation campaign going on to keep us out, to include allowing AU and UN contingents to set up all over the countryside. That fear of US intervention should be ruthlessly exploited.
Ah, dammit, I'm thinking professionally again. I need to shut up, finish the Christmas gluhwein, and go to bed.
Hugh-
Let Europe handle this conflict.
They are so much wiser than we.
Brighter, more sophisticated, more diplomatic, more profoundly in touch with their colonial criminal past.
They know everything that the U.S. does wrong.
Let's see them do something right about a clear-cut issue like this.
Alot to digest here, both with the titled piece and your later comments. I admire you for your unwillingness to let Darfur be swept under the rug.
Here are some questions that may be peripheral to Darfur itself but are pertinent to your strategic vision for East Africa.
1) Ethiopea is currently occupying portions of Eritrea after a border war 2 years ago. UN demarcators have determined that Eritrea is the aggrieved party, yet the Ethiopians are showing no willingness to withdraw back to internationally recognizes boundaries.
Question: Do we want to avail ourselves to an aggressor that is currently occupying the national territory of a neighboring state *a state by the way that has been a cooperative ally of the USA in our fight against Al Qaeda)?
2) Khartoum has recently signed a peace accord with the SPLA, giving the 3 region complete autonomy now with a referendum on independence in 5 years.
Questions: As Sudanese Christians from the diaspora begin returning with investment money and the South appears poised for a period of peace and prosperity, is it appropriate policy to push the two sides back to war? With America's appetite for foreign adventures utterly satiated right now, isn't there the distinct possibility that after stirring things up, there will be no staying power, to the great detriment of the Southern Sudanese?
"As Sudanese Christians from the diaspora begin returning with investment money and the South appears poised for a period of peace and prosperity, is it appropriate policy to push the two sides back to war..."
-- from the posting above
How many southern Sudanese exiles are returning, with how much money? And with what prospects? Under outside pressure, the government promised the southerners it would share the oil wealth -- that is in the south. As soon as it can, it will break all of its promises. It happened in Darfur. Rescuing Southerners and the non-Arab black Muslims in Darfur, until they can hold a referendum on independence, is not unreasonable given the record of the Sudanese government and the Arab supremacist ideology that is part of Islam.
"Hugh, if Afghanistan and Iraq are bad ideas, we ought to stay out of Sudan...."
-- from a posting above
If X and Y, then Z follows? I don't get the connnection. Afghanistan is a place with hideously difficult terrain, and an entirely Muslim population. Iraq is a place with many unpleasant and dangerous people, able to be reinforced without too much trouble across porous borders, and all of whom are Muslims.
The Sudan contains three distinct populations: 1) the Christians and animists in the southern Sudan, upon whom war has been made by the Muslim north for the past 20 years. Casualties: 1.8 million.
2) Non-Arab black African Muslims -- nominal Muslims -- in Darfur, upon whom war has been made by the Muslim Arab north for the past 3 years. Casualties: 200,000-300,000 dead, 2 million displaced and slowly perishing.
3) Arab Muslims in the North, taking everything -- the land in Darfur, by driving the black population off of that land, and the oil in the south, by making sure the revenues go to the north.
An American effort to destroy the primitive air force (a few planes, a few helicopters) and whatever else the Sudanese army possesses, together with a few other displays of power -- possibly strafing from the air a few dozen or few hundred Janjaweed, so that they realize their fun will no longer be such fun, could do wonders to help those in categories 1) and 2) to be protected from the vicious members of 3).
That's all. That seems to me possible, at almost no cost in American lives. And it would bolster black African Christians, or even those Muslims who are, in West Africa, syncretistic, possibly part of the maraboutic tribes, who do not much relish the new and fiercer and more intolerant of local customs Islam whose missionaries have been appearing, and not going away.
In order too help the American People understand in particular the liberal red diaper doper baby left over’s the danger of Islam as a dangerous ideology is too show how it is exponentially more dangerous than communism and Nazism combined.
Islam is not a religion. It is more liken too a SOCIO POLITICAL DEATH CULT (SPDC), exponentially MUCH more dangerous than communism and Nazism combined.
There needs too be a FACTUAL VIDEO DOCUMENTARY put together too outline Islam (SPDC)it's history based solely on the Koran, Hadith, and history. It is going to impossible for liars and front groups like CAIR to refute SPDC’s (Islam) own writings from the Koran, Hadith, Sunna, and history. Not the Nazi propaganda put out by front groups and paid leftist apologist at our universities that have been infiltrated and bought lock stock and barrel.
The reason I say a VIDEO DOCUMENTARY needs too be done is that many Americans are too lazy too read the Koran or are working too much overtime in order too survive so we can be taxed more too pay for illegal aliens social welfare. (Which is separate issue altogether) Then there is the problem of the book stores and other groups who only promote the liars and apologists materials. I had too have a B&N employee get me a copy of PIG Islam and the Crusades out of the storage area in the back of the store not on the sales floor. When I enquired about this the employee told me that since there arrival they have been kept off the sales floor and sold by customer request only. I expressed my concern being that PIG has (was still) been on the New York Times best seller and should be at the front of the store like all the rest. This is a common trend as many people know.
However if there is a FACTUAL VIDEO DOCUMENTARY about Islam (SPDC) made and backed by scholars (Spencer, Pipes, Bostom, Warraq, I. Ishaq, Yeor, Mark Gabriel and who can contend with PhD Gabriel being a professor at AL-Azhar University in Cairo Egypt, no Islamic apologist can get over on this small list of scholars), reinforced by Islamic scholars, Imams, and the ayatollah own words as well as those of terrorist. It can be showed on TV (hopefully the History Channel), Congress, the White House, Downing Street, the UN. Impossible you say!
Last I checked we still have the internet, and if this can be done after awhile the whole world can download and watch it. The MSM’s won’t be able too silence it, the truth will be known, and the SPDC likeness to Communism and Nazism will be known. THIS I BELIVE TOO BE OUR ONLY CHANCE. We just need someone or some groups too fund it. Any ideas JW readers?
A good opening for the start of the video could be something like. “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” Galatians 4:16 KJV
"copy of PIG Islam and the Crusades out of the storage area in the back of the store not on the sales floor. When I enquired about this the employee told me that since there arrival they have been kept off the sales floor and sold by customer request only."
-- from a posting above
Robert -- nota bene.
Hugh,
Yes it's crazy, Dr Spencer as treated as "he who must not be named" as if he where Harry Potters Lord Voldamore.
This is an old communist tactic too black out your enemies and ignore them as if they don't exist. When I throw out comparisons too communism I'm not doing as an insult but as a actual repeat of history happening right before us.
"You fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all the time." Abe Lincoln
If you keep an entire population busy enough where they don't have the time or luxury too see whats happening around them you can control them. Before they know it, it's too late. You've already passed law too enslave them.
Hugh,
Yes it's crazy, Dr Spencer as treated as "he who must not be named" as if he where Harry Potters Lord Voldamore.
This is an old communist tactic too black out your enemies and ignore them as if they don't exist. When I throw out comparisons too communism I'm not doing as an insult but as a actual repeat of history happening right before us.
"You fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all the time." Abe Lincoln
If you keep an entire population busy enough where they don't have the time or luxury too see whats happening around them you can control them. Before they know it, it's too late. You've already passed law too enslave them.
Posted by: Cpt at January 13, 2006 01:58 AM
MEANT too quote as "You can fool some of the people some of the time, But you can't fool all of the people all of the time" Abe Lincoln
Sorry long time lurker, but I really disagree with your analysis of the logistics of creating a base in Sudan.
You are thinking like an army or navy person. There is no need for trucks or a port.
Everything can be airlifted in.
During Desert Shield, before Desert Storm, the USAF airlifted basically the entire city of Sacramento, CA (to include all cars and buildings) from the US to Saudi Arabia over a period of several months. I know because I was a C-141 FE who participated in the most massive airlift in history. Participated, hell, worked my ass off! Talk about sleep deprivation!
Granted it was a herculean effort, but I hardly think that anything of that size would be required to create a base in Sudan. And with some help from aircraft carriers providing air support, it should certainly be possible. Maybe not as cheap as being able to truck in everything, but certainly doable.
Build the base at or next to the oil wells in southern sudan, get a refinery up and running and voila you have a source of fuel, once fuel is no longer tankered in things become a whole lot easier to sustain.
Hugh, I don't like the current Sudanese government, either. However, one reason I wrote what I did is because no matter how good your air and sea power are, wars are won and lost on the ground. No intervention will change the Sudanese government's mind unless it is military; and the military pacification of the land of Janhjawid, terrorist camps, and Chinese weapons will require a land campaign over an area the size of the USA east of the Mississippi. That's something on the order of the US committment to the European theatre in World War II.
Can we really foot the bill?
"That's something on the order of the US committment to the European theatre in World War II."
-- from a posting above
I continue to think that the destruction of Sudan's military force would take a day or two, and that were the 8,700 "peacekeepers" in Darfur now to be replaced, both there and in the south (with those oil-wells gushing in welcome) by no more than 5,000 American "peace-through-a-very-little-warmaking" soldiers, all manner of things would be well. What can the Sudanese government do, when American planes are all over the place? And what can the Arab League do, as smiling crowds of black Africans welcome their American saviors -- not in the sullen and crafty manner of the Muslims in Iraq, but with full-throated enthusiasm? Scenes of babies being fed. Scenes of relief, happiness. Will Amr al-Moussa dare to scream about the Americans interfering with the divine right of Arab Muslism to kill black Africans, Christian, animist, and even Muslim?
Even The New Duranty Times will have a hard time finding fault with that.
WhiteDemon, I'm not sure there's a fair comparison there, if only because there were so many pre-staged bases in KSA to use, and the host nation was the one supplying us with fuel. The incredible amount of assets that we could bring to bear in 1990 is gone, gone, gone. Check with your buddies still active in AMC (I'm assuming you are not, but if I'm wrong, I'd be glad to correspond via different channels), you'll find that the aircraft, the parts, the personnel---aren't there anymore. As for taking over working refineries in Sudan, that's a pretty aggressive action, especially since most of those refineries are owned by PRC corporations.
As for the basing in IZ and AF, we're occupying previously built-up air bases. Yes, there's a lot of work by the bare-base people, but there's a framework to build on. That doesn't exist in Sudan. Likewise, as I tried to point out, where you would you fly supplies from if your destination was Sudan? Them Saudis were terrified of Saddam when the only thing that stood between him and their oil fields was one US aircraft carrier (which would have been enough to stop Saddam had he tried to move south), and were willing to give us anything for protection. To be honest, no one in the mohammedan world gives a rat's patootie about what happens in Darfur except when it threatens to draw greater US intervention in the area--which I suggested is a working lever.
I'm not saying there aren't military options. There are. Ultimately, though, the problem isn't military, it's political. It's understanding who our enemies are, what their motives and weapons are (weapons being more than the tanks and planes that the bean counters focus on), and what our options are in countering them. Because of that, I've said that Hugh is 90% dead-on, but disagreed with the basing solution. I haven't disagreed that there might be an appropriate military effort to be applied (I can think of several, even if I choose not to discuss them), but since the political understanding and will doesn't exist at this time, suggest that the main effort at this time should be to build that understanding and will.
I don't know oh venerable VP. Even in the sanguine atmosphere that you describe, how long before the first suicide bombing? You as much as anybody understands the mind of the Muslim.
Longtime Lurker,
It's true we don't have the military airlift capability now that we had during Desert Shield/Storm. That airlift broke the back of the C-141. I often wonder if the cost of replacing that airframe so much earlier than expected is figured into the total bill for that Gulf war.
However, I still think a small base would be possible. Not cheap or easy, maybe downright hairy at times.
Temporarily contracting a lot of the current regular supply routes out to civilian airlines will free up some more AMC assets. And if we do it all under the guise of humanitarian/famine relief we could probably get Israel to let us use one of their facilities as a hub.
I was brought up to believe where there is a will, there is a way. I mean, if we can build and supply a base in Antarctica, granted it is small, but nevertheless Sudan is more accessable and not as much of a routine hazard as flying resupply to McMurdo...It is the will that is lacking. And like you said, actually people don't even know there is a problem in Darfur, just like they don't even know how evil islam is. I'm in the middle of Bat Yeor's "Eurabia" right now and it is really astonishing how much progress the muslims have made towards world domination, and right under our very noses! Not just astonishing, almost panic inducing...
Yeah, seizing oil fields might be considered aggressive, but I'm sure the non muslims in the south would rather see their oil flow to Americans temporarily than their blood flow under a muslim's scimtar. And keep in mind, I share the same philosophy as Tom Tancredo (nuclear retaliation on Mecca and Medina for any muslim nuclear strike on us). Besides, half our problems now stem from pussy footing around, and not being aggressive enough with these muslims. The only thing they understand is violence and brutality.
If the south were to secede, maybe we could even work a deal where they sell oil exclusively to us, we manage everything and give every non muslim citizen a nice royalty check....
I never did see why we put up with all this crap from the Saudi's and why we didn't just seize their oil fields in the first place, give them a nice royalty of course, but guarantee our country a supply of oil. I'm really tired of the muslim extortion racket. And a large chunk of oil money is going to fund terrorism, dawa and jihad, so we are paying them to slit our own throats. For that alone we should be seizing their oil fields.
Or better yet, we should get off oil altogether then obliterate every muslim oil field on the planet. Either bomb it into dust or inject it with those oil eating bacteria. That way they won't have any money coming in to fund terrorism, dawa or jihad. Then they can sink back into the sandy wasteland they came from.
Yeah, I know. But I can dream, can't I?
Before any eventual military intervention gets moving, it needs a political support, which in my opinion, means demanding the political division of Sudan into three [3] or more states.
1- long-suffereing southern Sudan
2- Dar Fur [=home of the Fur]. Eventhough they are Muslims, they have not been arabized and should not be arabized. They too need a separate state to protect them and their unique culture
3- northern Sudan, arabized and islamized
this demand for division made by private individuals such as ourselves, and by private associations, is a necessary forerunner to military intervention. The demand would become a cause to rally around. Having been made and widely publicized, the demand might in itself alleviate the mass murders and other crimes in Sudan.