October 13, 2006
"Darfur is Rwanda in Slow Motion"
I discuss genocide in Africa and the possibility of civil war in Lebanon with Austin Bay and Gerard Van der Leun in a podcast show at Pajamas Media.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at October 13, 2006 11:39 AMJust out of curiousity, and not to belittle the Darfur crisis in any way, how come no-one talks much about the DR Congo, a much more serious problem than Sudan?
And that was a seriously depressing interview. What's with Gerard Van der Leun calling the UNSG an "ass" in response to Annan's plea to get international intervention? Or his ridiculing groups trying to get the crisis in the public eye, and then suggesting that everyone just sit and twiddle their thumbs until it's time to count the bodies?
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 13, 2006 01:15 PMGerard didn't "suggest" everyone sit around and twiddle their thumbs. He just knows that's what will happen. And he's right. That is what has been happening and it is what will continue to happen. Hardly anyone takes "Never Again" seriously, especially when black Africans are under the gun. Lovely world we live in.
Why do few people talk about the Congo? Probably because the overwhelming majority have no clue what's going on there, myself included. How many journalists are there? Few, if any.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at October 13, 2006 02:56 PMHow many journalists are there? Few, if any.
Anderson Cooper just did several nights on prime time there, and there's been non-stop coverage of the conflict in the last few years, which has claimed somewhere in the neighborhood of two million dead.
The only time I've seen the DR Congo conflict mentioned on blogs was when there was a chance to bash the UN because some African peacekeepers were involved in a sex scandal. Other than that, complete and utter silence.
Similarily, when there was a chance to bash the UN over Darfur, or portray it as an Arab Islamist government killing its black population, there has been a lot of blog coverage. But once it's pointed out that one of the main rebel forces fighting the government is trying to set up a Sharia-based Islamist government of its own, or that the UN leadership is doing the right thing and desparately pushing for intervention, or that both sides in the conflict are black, then things get really quiet again.
Call me a cynic, but I suspect a lot of the breast-beating on this is somewhat partisan in quality.
Gerard didn't "suggest" everyone sit around and twiddle their thumbs.
Okay. What did he suggest? I must have missed it.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 13, 2006 03:18 PMAnd credit where credit is due - Austin Bay has quite a few mentions of the DR Congo conflict, with only a few refences to the sex scandal (which, yes, should be mentioned as well, it was shameful).
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 13, 2006 03:22 PMHi!,
I’m Fabrizio from Italy (Italian Blogs for Darfur). We’ve translated our
appeal to italian media to speak about Darfur (1 hour only in 2005!).
Can
you support us publishing it on your site, we we’ll be very glad for.
http://www.savetherabbit.net/darfur/?p=18
Please, tell people on the web what we do, it's important to collect a lot
of signs (that are not just signs, but also e-mails sent to italian media!).
Italy is going to sit at The UN Council from January 2007.
tks,
Fabrizio
DPU,
I didn't mention the Congo because I don't know anything about it. I can't be on top of everything, and I really don't see any media coverage of it, ever. I am aware that it's a distaster, but I couldn't even tell you who the sides are. Sorry! There are lots of African basket case countries, and it's just not my area.
If there's something in particular worthwhile you think I (and we) should read, please feel free to share it with the rest of us.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at October 13, 2006 04:27 PMSorry, cannot get in the least bit concerned about Africa and the various tribes killing one another. I have seen these cycles repeating all of my life, and have read of them repeating for, oh, about 150 years at a minimum.
Even if any given current genocide is stopped, who is going to stop the next one? Sure as he** will not be the Africans. If the Africans cannot fix their own mess than I do not want ANY of my tax dollars, or more importantly, ANY American GI to go to Africa.
Unless events in Africa substantially and materially affect the U.S., I do not care what Africans do to one another.
Posted by: Ron Snyder at October 13, 2006 04:28 PMThe corrupted, genocidal nature of African government should be around quite a while longer given the current trends in progress. I am speaking from a global commodity resources angle which I follow rather closely for investment purposes.
Africa's only value to the global economy presently is its physical resources. Certainly not its manufacturing capacity or labor force. China in 2005 imported 30% of their petroleum from Africa. Guess who they made deals with, guess who used the proceeds to buy Chinese weaponry, and guess what they did with the weapons. The link below is a quick overview that makes the point that China really doesn't care about who or what in terms of who's in power and who's getting killed. It's the oil and minerals they need now and more down the road. Logically, if you were trying to be a big time dictator, wouldn't you just love selling your resources to someone with cash who doesn't ask you to be nice and considerate to the folks you're suppressing? Better yet, they sell you any and all the weapons you want. In the article, you'll notice that the Sudan is at the top of the list. Kind of explains why they don't give a damn about any Western/UN sanctions. And the African Union peacekeepers? Right.
And I believe sooner or later these 'arrangements' will haunt the US as China grows stronger and wealthier. They are already our goto loan people, along with Japan. Which is another cloud on the horizon, but not on topic.
http://www.rfa.org/english/features/lelyveld/2006/01/25/china_africa/
Posted by: allan at October 13, 2006 07:26 PMThe most sad thing to me is that the Reps haven't used the slo-mo genocide in Darfur as an accurate description of letting the UN solve a controversial problem.
China's support for Sudan, like its support for N. Korea, means no UN SC concensus on taking military action -- and most other action is mostly talk.
Sanctions have a way of hurting the people suffering more than hurting the tyrants. Amnesty or HRW condemnation only hurts the democracies (which is why they spend so much time criticizing America & Bush). UN SC resolutions, even 16 of them, didn't do squat about Saddam.
Either military is used, fight -- or else it's one form of acceptance or another, but it's acceptance.
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at October 14, 2006 01:26 AMAnderson Cooper just did several nights on prime time there...The only time I've seen the DR Congo conflict mentioned on blogs was when there was a chance to bash the UN because some African peacekeepers were involved in a sex scandal. Other than that, complete and utter silence.
Call me a cynic, but I suspect a lot of the breast-beating on this is somewhat partisan in quality.
But once it's pointed out that one of the main rebel forces fighting the government is trying to set up a Sharia-based Islamist government of its own, or that the UN leadership is doing the right thing and desparately pushing for intervention, or that both sides in the conflict are black, then things get really quiet again.
I think most people who have an education above the third grade (and who are not Juan Cole) already know that the entire population of the Sudan is black. Some of these blacks call themselves Arabs and identify with the genocidal Wahhabis. Some don't. The blacks who don't are being killed by the black Wahhabists.
Do you think color should be an issue in this discussion? If so, why?
It's also absurd to think that the right wing has a problem with making deals with Islamists - they love Sistani, the UAE, the Islamist warlords who helped us deal with the Islamist Taliban - some even tolerate the Sauds. If you look at the government's actions and ignore their words, you'll see that no one is fighting Islamism.
Posted by: mary at October 14, 2006 07:15 AMMJT: I didn't mention the Congo because I don't know anything about it. I can't be on top of everything, and I really don't see any media coverage of it, ever.
I wasn't trying to put the thumbscrews on you, Michael, or suggesting that you speak on the issue. I just find it odd that there is so much concentration on one particular struggle in Africa, and so little on another much worse conflict. The only significant difference that I can see is that Muslims are involved in one and not the other.
Regardless, I'm ashamed that my own nation's pathetic government is dragging its heels on intervention in Darfur. We have some personnel there right now in a technical support role, and have contributed a lot of equipment to the AU peacekeepers, but certainly a lot more needs to be done.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 14, 2006 07:53 AMI think most people who have an education above the third grade (and who are not Juan Cole) already know that the entire population of the Sudan is black.
That's an astounding statement to make, considering that you objected quite strenously to me saying exactly that on my blog a while ago. You even devoted a post on you own blog riduling Juan Cole for pointing out that both sides in the conflict are black.
Some of these blacks call themselves Arabs and identify with the genocidal Wahhabis. Some don't. The blacks who don't are being killed by the black Wahhabists.
This demonstrates a lot of the right-wing thinking that I see on this, but it's erroneous. The sides in the conflict are largely based on tribal alliances, and so it doesn't model itself into the neat divisions along religious or ethnic lines that we're comfortable with. The main rebel group that is fighting the government is more Islamist than the government itself. It wants to establish Sharia in an area that has a lot of non-muslims in it.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 14, 2006 10:37 AMI have a Nat Geographic book on the Nile, printed before the aswan dam was completed, it pointed out the Muslems were dominating and killing the christians to get the oil, Islam is a cancer and I see the reality as:-
Islam - convert or die
Civilisation- (eventually) live in peace or die
That's an astounding statement to make, considering that you objected quite strenously to me saying exactly that on my blog a while ago.
Yes, and I said:
:::
In the words of the "Arab" Janjaweed women who encourage rape and genocide in Darfur:
"...the janjaweed women known as Hakama, a kind of Greek chorus who sing and encourage their warrior men during raids on villages, broke into song when they saw the dead in the mosque: The blood of the blacks runs like water, we take their goods and we chase them from our area and our cattle will be in their land. The power of al-Bashir belongs to the Arabs, and we will kill you until the end, you blacks, we have killed your God."
..The chief said that the Arab women also racially insulted women from the village: "You are gorillas, you are black, and you are badly dressed.""
:::
The 'Arabs' in the Sudan believe they're Arabs, they call themselves Arabs and they would (given the mind-bogglingly racist things they say and do) would be very insulted to be called black, no matter how dark or light they may be. They call themselves Arabs, so that's how they're identified. If they called themselves Walloons, that's probably what they'd be called in the press and in the blogs, even if they don't look like Belgians.
However, I do agree with Cole, for once, when he says that this is a political conflict. I doubt that he'd point out Saudi involvement in the whole mess, given that he's such a Saud supporter, but the Jajaweed are supported by the Wahhabis. If the Fur tribes and the 'rebels' are more Islamist, then I'll take your word for it. There are some groups and tribes who are more extremist than the Wahhabis - the Deobandi Taliban were about equivalent, so they do exist.
I wouldn't promote the idea that we should arm the rebels, mostly because they're obviously lame fighters. I have supported the idea that we should send in a reasonable mercenary group to mediate the conflict, a tactic that worked in Sierra Leone, but the UN wouldn't hire them in any case, because they've proven that they're much more effective than the UN 'peacekeepers' ever were. All that's left is another "peace plan", I guess.
Posted by: mary at October 14, 2006 03:23 PMThey call themselves Arabs, so that's how they're identified.
You do know that the rebels are also Arab and Muslim, don't you?
...the Jajaweed are supported by the Wahhabis
Aside from there being little evidence that the Sudanese government are Wahhabists, the Janjaweed are fighting against the JEM, which is Islamist. And other primary rebel group, the SLA, which isn't Islamist, has switched sides and is now fighting JEM alongside the Janjaweed.
...doubt that he'd point out Saudi involvement in the whole mess, given that he's such a Saud supporter
No he isn't. Not even close. Is this a repitition of the time when you thought Cole was a supporter of al Sadr, despite Cole repeatedly calling him a goon and a thug?
I wouldn't promote the idea that we should arm the rebels, mostly because they're obviously lame fighters.
No they aren't. The rebel forces are actually quite efficient.
You know, you're getting a lot of this stuff really wrong.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 14, 2006 03:56 PMYou do know that the rebels are also Arab and Muslim, don't you?
Which rebels are we discussing and why should I care? I've already said that I don't support either side. I've also said that I support the one alternative that the UN will never support. So what are we arguing about?
No they aren't. The rebel forces are actually quite efficient.
You're going to have to prove that one. Efficient compared to who(m)?
No he isn't [a supporter of the Sauds] Not even close.
Yeah, right - like when Cole was demanding that the state of California create legislation demaning that oil companies must build new refineries in America - something the Saudis supported:
By the way, Saud al-Faisal correctly points out that a key element in the current high price of petroleum is lack of refining capacity. Since the oil majors are not willing to build a new refinery, why not resolve the problem ourselves. Can't California do one of those fancy referendum items instructing the state to build a refinery? They could insist that its products meet California pollution standards. A refinery would cost $5 billion, but it might or might not be profitable in the medium term (petroleum prices could dip once it was completed), which is why the corporations are not building one. It is highly irresponsible, and hurting the world economy.
Actually, the problem is that building the refineries would be unprofitable for Americans, but beneficial for the Sauds.
Here's some real criticism of Saudi Arabia:
The Bush administration and its Neocons have shot themselves in the foot big time if they thought they could use Iraq to reduce US dependence on Saudi Arabia. If you want to understand the problem, look at it this way. The world produces about 80 million barrels of petroleum every day. But only a fraction of that is exported, since producing countries use a lot of it at home.
Rather than being marginalized, Saudi Arabia has entered a new economic golden age. This was not what the Neocons were going for..
..and..
I heard the Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, give this speech Tuesday evening at the US-Arab Economic Forum, and am excerpting a few key passages. He also made remarks in the afternoon. At one point he said that he expected that within the next decade, Saudi Arabia's Shura Council or legislature would be popularly elected. I.e., it would become a democratic parliament. He said that the provincial legislatures would also be elected by then. I, at least, had not before heard such a direct and specific timetable laid out for this development. Of course, he is an ambassador and not the Saudi executive, but his remarks were unequivocal.
Tuesday evening, he openly called on the Palestinians to give up all violence to and wage their struggle for self-determination using Gandhian principles of nonviolent peaceful resistance.
He's gushing. How cute.
Posted by: mary at October 14, 2006 09:25 PMYou're going to have to prove that one.
I'm pretty sure that I can't prove anything to you. But you should consider the fact that the Sudanese military hasn't been able to end the insurgency in the last three years. Or you could actually read some information about the conflict.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 14, 2006 09:59 PMAnd speaking of supporters of the Saudis, didn't vote one back into office a while back?
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 14, 2006 10:10 PM"..speaking of supporters of the Saudis, didn't vote one back into office a while back?"
Every member of the American government past and present (save for McCain, Schumer and Giuliani) is a supporter of the Saudis. Do you mean Clinton, who received millions of Saudi donations?
Posted by: mary at October 15, 2006 09:17 AM..you should consider the fact that the Sudanese military hasn't been able to end the insurgency in the last three years
The Sudanese military is not what I'd call an 'effective' military. Like all terrorist "military" forces, their only skill is killing non-combatants by the thousands.
Or you could actually read some information about the conflict.
Right. I've been to several protest rallies on the subject, I've covered those events on my blog and I've contributed photographs to Charles Jacobs at IAbolish, an organization dedicated to ending slavery and genocide in the Sudan.
I've also read and listened to Sudanese opinions about the conflict and about the eslavement of blacks in the Sudan. I've read Simon Deng and Francis Bok. Do you have any problems with their evaluation of the conflict?
I've also read some information from someone who knew something about effective military operations in Africa. Apparently it would cost "$2000 per day per man plus logistics" to send Blackwater to deal with problems in Uganda. I guess that's the going rate? He also mentioned that "Sierra Leone showed what 200 good guys can do with clear aims."
200 men did what the UN, their letter-writing NGOs, their millions of dollars in aid and all their their "peacekeepers" couldn't do - stop the atrocities.
It's not a great solution of course, but it's proven to be better than all the other solutions out there.
Posted by: mary at October 15, 2006 10:02 AM...the eslavement of blacks in the Sudan...
Again with the pigmentation in a conflict that is not about pigment.
I've read Simon Deng and Francis Bok.
Then you have little excuse for a lack of knowledge about the crisis.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 15, 2006 12:13 PMI've also read some information from someone who knew something about effective military operations in Africa. Apparently it would cost "$2000 per day per man plus logistics" to send Blackwater to deal with problems in Uganda.
(a) What does Uganda have to do with Sudan?
(b) What does Sierra Leone have to do with Sudan? And Operation Palliser involved a bit more than just 200 men. Sheesh.
© I'm dismayed that the complete catastrophy in Iraq has not driven the message home that military solutions often cannot fix political problems, and that the same simplistic and moronic "solutions" (like bringing in mercenaries) keep being suggested.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 15, 2006 12:33 PMThen you have little excuse for a lack of knowledge about the crisis.
I don't read your sources. That doesn't mean I'm uninformed, it just means that I'm not a fan of Kos, Chomsky or Cole.
Have you been reading Francis Bok and Simon Deng too? If so, then why are you so uninformed?
What does Sierra Leone have to do with Sudan? And Operation Palliser involved a bit more than just 200 men. Sheesh.
I think he was talking about Executive Outcomes, the private force described here:
Interspersed in Venters’ account of air operations into the hinterland of Freetown are insightful accounts of Operation Palliser (the British deployment of their Quick Reaction Force to West Africa in 2000), UN operations and events at a time when very little stood between RUF leader Foday Sankoh, the fall of Freetown and defeat of President Tejan Kabbah. At that point, Ellis is flying three to four combat missions daily as a contract pilot for Kabah’s government, in close cooperation with the British military continent and UNAMSIL. These operations take place at a time when a 13,000 UN peacekeeping mission had replaced Executive Outcomes but proved itself incapable of rescuing eleven of their own that had been taken prisoner by the West Side Boys. Venter uses the detail in these chapters to argue his case in favour of mercenaries and clearly believes that they are a cheaper, most effective alternative to UN peacekeepers in situations where there is no peace to keep. He views the United Nations and its efforts with barely concealed contempt as expensive, ineffectual and generally a waste of money and effort.
What does Uganda have to do with Sudan?
What does the Congo have to do with the Sudan? I was talking about relative costs.
I'm dismayed that the complete catastrophy in Iraq has not driven the message home that military solutions often cannot fix political problems, and that the same simplistic and moronic "solutions" (like bringing in mercenaries) keep being suggested.
Military solutions have, throughout history, solved, political problems. If military solutions are, as you say, 'moronic', what do you suggest? Yet another peace treaty? Strongly-worded letters from Amnesty International?
Posted by: mary at October 15, 2006 05:17 PM.. I should also say that the only thing military action can accomplish in the Sudan is to subdue the combatants in order to get refugees/civilians out of the troubled regions. That's all anyone can accomplish there.
Posted by: mary at October 16, 2006 07:10 AMHave you been reading Francis Bok and Simon Deng too? If so, then why are you so uninformed?
Yes, I have been reading them. But Bok and Deng are both refugees of the Second Sudanese Civil War, not of the Darfur conflict. While reading of their experiences is both illuminating and a valuable resource about the nature of the Sudanese regime, that war is over, and the south largely could be said to have won that particular struggle. But the nature of the Darfur conflict is considerably different.
I think he was talking about Executive Outcomes, the private force described here:
Uh, you're pointing to the mess in Sierra Leone from 1996 to 2000 as a mercenary success story?
I should also say that the only thing military action can accomplish in the Sudan is to subdue the combatants in order to get refugees/civilians out of the troubled regions.
In the short term, I agree. A robust force is needed to protect humanitarian aid, and to provide a buffer between the Sudanese armed forces, the rebel forces, and the population. But somehow I doubt you would really like to see a mercenary UN force.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 16, 2006 07:25 AMWhile reading of their experiences is both illuminating and a valuable resource about the nature of the Sudanese regime, that war is over, and the south largely could be said to have won that particular struggle. But the nature of the Darfur conflict is considerably different.
You may believe that their war is over, but they don't. They're still marching and speaking out about the need for intervention in Darfur. They must have very good reasons for doing this.
Uh, you're pointing to the mess in Sierra Leone from 1996 to 2000 as a mercenary success story?
While Executive Outcomes is not the most savory form of crisis intervention, it was hard to argue with the words of Sam Norma, the Sierra Leonian deputy defense minister, who said to me back in April of 1996, “Our people have died, lost their limbs, lost their eyes and their properties for these elections. If we employ a service to protect our hard-won democracy, why should it be viewed negatively?” Given the abominable condition of Sierra Leone today, and the fact that no legitimate force has come to the rescue, perhaps Sierra Leonians could keep their limbs if the international community let them keep their mercenaries.
In Sierra Leone, Spicer's efforts have been heralded by the private military industry as the "work of angels."
..even the BBC agreed.
But somehow I doubt you would really like to see a mercenary UN force.
I have no problem with the idea, but the UN doesn't want to see a mercenary UN force.
The UN and their NGOs continue to paint mercs as evil, violent, profiteers. Mercenaries aren't the most principled and selfless human beings around, but when they're compared to the UN, they're angels of compassion, efficiency and mercy. The comparison doesn't help the UN regain its lost credibility.
Posted by: mary at October 16, 2006 11:58 AMYou may believe that their war is over, but they don't. They're still marching and speaking out about the need for intervention in Darfur.
I didn't say anything about their views on Darfur. I said that the conflict they were involved in is pretty much over now. That doesn't mean that they don't know a great deal about the nature of the conflict in Darfur, or that they should have no opinion on it. But many people simply hear "Sudan" and confuse the two conflicts, which are fairly different. And you were specifying that they were your primary sources of infromation about the Darfur conflict.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 16, 2006 01:31 PMWould Mary & DPU please start their own blog?
Posted by: Ron Snyder at October 16, 2006 05:23 PMHey, it's not our fault that no one else feels like shooting off their big mouths on this topic. Besides, I think I'm winning.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 16, 2006 06:25 PMWould Mary & DPU please start their own blog?
I thought this was a discussion that would interest everyone..?
At least we're not bugging our host about his voting choices..
Posted by: mary at October 16, 2006 08:33 PMI am enjoying this discussion. Both Mary and DPU know more about Darfur than I do. (It was not my choice of discussion topics in the podcast.)
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at October 16, 2006 09:05 PMAh, Executive Outcomes, everybody's favourite mercenary group! Since I have a big mouth, I'll wade in regardless.
Mercenaries can win battles but they can't win wars or (more importantly) secure peace. Regardless of the outstanding questions of EO's interests in natural resources (particularly diamonds) in Sierra Leone, the peace in that country was largely underwritten by the UK government following Operation Palliser. The success of Palliser was not just about fighting battles with the RUF, but about supporting the Sierra Leonean military with training and logistics, and lobbying for adequate deployment of UNAMSIL.
Point being, the interest of mercenary groups is often in prolonging wars, because that means that their contracts last longer. EO's "success" was illusory; they could push the RUF back as much as they wanted, and there would still be an RUF (possibly just over the border) waiting to spring up again (cf the Taliban in Afghanistan). The only solution to these problems is political, supported by military power.
BTW the idea that, when compared to the UN, mercenaries are "angels of compassion" is as laughable as it is malignant.
Posted by: Petrit at October 17, 2006 04:21 AMI am enjoying this discussion.
Thanks Michael - and thanks for posting photos from out west. I never knew there were dunes like that in Colorado.
Posted by: mary at October 17, 2006 07:00 AMPoint being, the interest of mercenary groups is often in prolonging wars, because that means that their contracts last longer.
Also, individuals drawn to the mercenary lifestyle tend to enjoy war. Not necessarily killing, mind you, but they do enjoy the conflict and excitement. Which may not make them the best peacekeepers around.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 17, 2006 07:19 AMPoint being, the interest of mercenary groups is often in prolonging wars, because that means that their contracts last longer.
Do you have any facts to back up that claim? Mercs tend to sell their cost-effectiveness.
Given a choice between getting shot at for years and years vs. fighting a short battle and retiring with a cache of diamonds, most would probably prefer the latter.
Unlike the UN, you can choose to hire mercenaries or you can choose not to hire them. And, unlike the UN, they are capable of winning battles. When civilians are plagued by 'rebels' who steal their food (and the food helpfully provided by UN NGOs) winning battles against these rebels is exactly what people need.
That's exactly what the UN never does. When you need to win battles, merc are cheaper and you don't have to listen to a bunch of pompous moralizing and guilt-tripping as they pick your pockets. Unlike the UN, they don't pretend to be something they're not.
If the UN had ever proven that it's capable of protecting the lives of unarmed civilians, we wouldn't even have to have this discussion. Honestly, mercs are a terrible solution. But they're still better than the UN.
I don't think mercs should work unsupervised by any nation or national alliance, and I certainly don't think they should replace the UN. Roland the Headless Thompson gunner would only be a slight improvement over Kofi Annan. However, that sonufabitch Van Owen would be a great improvement over the terrorists and genocidaires who are allowed to chair the UN’s Human Rights Commission.
Posted by: mary at October 17, 2006 07:28 AMGiven a choice between getting shot at for years and years vs. fighting a short battle and retiring with a cache of diamonds, most would probably prefer the latter.
Again, not so. Mercenaries are mercenaries because they enjoy war and the associated lifestyle, not because they want to retire.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 17, 2006 07:55 AMMercenaries are mercenaries because they enjoy war and the associated lifestyle, not because they want to retire.
As far as I know, they're also in it for the money.
However, I haven't been in contact with mercenaries lately, so I can't say for sure. I assume you can't say for sure either?
Posted by: mary at October 17, 2006 09:24 AMHowever, I haven't been in contact with mercenaries lately, so I can't say for sure. I assume you can't say for sure either?
I actually read quite a bit about war, being kind of a war junkie, despite my anti-war stance. I'd recommend anything about Mike Hoare ("Mad Mike") as a fairly good introduction to the world of mercenaries, and Fredrick Forsyth's "Dogs of War", while semi-fictional, is a good insight into the personalities of mercenaries, at least the ones of the 1960's.
Overall, they're just normal guys who love war and are drawn to it as a profession. They're not at all apolitical or without morals, and are often better judges of what's going on because they're in the thick of things. And like any other group, they have their share of bad apples and psychopaths as well, probably more than the norm. Most people don't like killing other people, and while most mercenaries seem to tolerate it in order to get to go to war, there are probably some attracted to the profession because they actually like killing people. I'd suggest viewing the footage of the mercenaries in Iraq shooting up civilian vehicles on the highway for fun as evidence of that group. They probably don't make very good soldiers though.
At any rate, your suggestion that the UN would not "allow" mercenaries is invalid - any country, including the US, could hire a mercenary force and use them as UN peacekeepers. They don't because it's not a role they're suited for.
Regarding being in it for the money, well, there aren't a lot of retired mercenaries. They usually keep going back to war.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 17, 2006 10:20 AMHowever, I haven't been in contact with mercenaries lately, so I can't say for sure. I assume you can't say for sure either?
I can say for sure, because I have been in touch with mercenaries recently, and I did research on them for a conflict resolution organisation in the late 90s.
Unlike the UN, you can choose to hire mercenaries or you can choose not to hire them. And, unlike the UN, they are capable of winning battles. When civilians are plagued by 'rebels' who steal their food (and the food helpfully provided by UN NGOs) winning battles against these rebels is exactly what people need.
National governments are at liberty to refuse UN peacekeepers (as Sudan is doing at present) or to refuse contingents from specific countries. The UN is not there to "win battles" as peacekeeping is only possible if there is a peace to keep - which is clearly a political rather than a military question, and not the responsibility of troops on the ground.
(I'd be interested to know what a "UN NGO" is. There is the UN; there are the UN agencies (such as WFP), which are functionally entirely separate from the UN Secretariat; and there are NGOS, which are simultaneously implementing partners and a tremendous thorn in the side of the UN.)
For the purposes of this discussion, the motivation of mercenaries doesn't interest me in the slightest. I'm more interested in know if anybody wanted to question my central point, which was that "mercenaries can win battles, but they can't win wars or... secure peace."
Posted by: Petrit at October 17, 2006 01:33 PMIn case anyone is still reading this for information on Darfur... :)
I mentioned earlier in resposne to Mary's contention that the rebels are "lame fighters" that they were actually pretty good fighters. A couple of days ago, Jan Plonk, the UN envoy to Sudan, wrote an overview in his blog of the various rebel factions at work in Darfur.First, the SAF [Sudanese Armed Forces] has lost two major battles, last month in Umm Sidir and this week in Karakaya. The losses seem to have been very high. Reports speak about hundreds of casualties in each of the two battles, many wounded soldiers and many taken as prisoner. The morale in the Government army in North Darfur has gone down. Some generals have been sacked; soldiers have refused fighting.Which may be a positive development in some regards. However, the Sudanese government has once again resorted to remobilizing the arab militias, which isn't good at all.
Lastly, while I can't seem to find the source, I read a while back that the rebel forces could be said to have won, by a large factor, most of the military engagements they've had with government forces. The figure, I think, was something like 32 out of 38.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at October 17, 2006 02:20 PMDarwhatsit?
Seriously. I enjoyed the podcast, because both the interviewees were articulate and open about their lack of optimism (and ideas!) for Sudan. However I think that a lot of us are bringing a bit too much baggage to this particular table; it's fair to say that US foreign or domestic policy is not a particularly pressing concern for the people of Darfur. Trying to understand these situations through the prism of our own limited perspectives of the world tends to lead to situations like... oh, I don't know, Iraq.
Oh god, I said it. I said the I-word. Sorry.
Posted by: Petrit at October 17, 2006 02:45 PMSorry, that last remark was even more off-topic than the discussion about mercenaries. Sorry.
Posted by: Petrit at October 17, 2006 02:54 PM压力开关
压力变送器
压力传感器
流量开关
流量计
液位计
液位开关
温湿度记录仪
风速仪
差压开关
可燃气体检测仪
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
runescape power leveling
runescape powerleveling
runescape power level
runescape money
runescape gold
buy runescape gold
buy runescape money
runescape items
runescape accounts
buy runescape accounts
buy runescape items
cheap runescape money
cheap runescape gold
runescape gp
dofus kamas
dofus kamas
Achat DOFUS Kamas
Guild Wars Gold
buy Guild Wars Gold
GW Gold
陈楚生
卫星电视上海卫星电视卫星电视安装安装卫星电视圣诞树网站建设google优化Google左侧优化google排名Google左侧排名GOOGE左侧优化排名 上海google优化google优化排名上海google左侧排名上海google排名上海google左侧优化google优化Google左侧优化短信群发短信群发器短信群发群发短信短信群发器小灵通群发器小灵通短信群发器短信群发软件手机短信群发软件短信群发设备手机短信群发设备手机短信群发器网站建设网站设计网站制作美女图片美女写真性感美女制服美腿西洋美女走光偷拍网友自拍包装印刷上海包装印刷免费电影免费下载电影免费在线电影上海印刷上海包装弯管弯管上海hp笔记本维修上海惠普笔记本维修上海IBM笔记本维修上海DELL笔记本维修上海联想笔记本维修上海东芝笔记本维修上海acer笔记本维修上海华硕笔记本维修上海索尼笔记本维修上海sony笔记本维修上海hp笔记本维修上海IBM笔记本维修弯管 弯管加工 路灯节能路灯监控 合同能源管理google优化google左侧优化google排名google左侧排名卫星电视卫星电视安装上海卫星电视安装卫星电视安装卫星电视卫星电视卫星电视安装上海卫星电视
Posted by: 111 at November 28, 2007 08:22 PM
