BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: gnu
Date: 24 May 05 - 09:59 AM

Ya got that right brucie. And, if someone told me the ROE, if attacked, included not returning fire without the express permission of the Minister, I'd refuse to deploy. Although that one got sorted out rather quickly after the first time our lads came under fire, it should have never happened. CF indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 05 - 11:21 AM

The African Union took a vote and decided that they want to use only their own military people for this effort. They said they will accept logistical support and financial aid from other countries such as Canada, but they do not want any fighters (or peacekeepers) from any countries other than African Union countries to be on the ground in Sudan.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 24 May 05 - 08:46 PM

Carol C. - Canada has been providing the AU with assistance for quite some time. The recent endeavor to send more assistance is being rejected by the Sudanese government.

From the Globe and Mail, "OTTAWA -- The Sudanese ambassador says her country will not allow Canadian troops into Darfur despite an assistance package from the minority Liberal government that includes up to 100 military advisers to help the African Union maintain peace in that war-ravaged region of western Sudan."

Is Canada the only western nation providing assistance at this time?

Seems to me that anyone (including Jews of all nations) who have ever experienced genocide or ethnic cleansing should be joining forces to stop the mass killings in Darfur. Why the silence? Its the silence that allowed the holocaust in the 40's and its the silence that allows the rape and murder in the Sudan.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST
Date: 24 May 05 - 10:35 PM

'Seems to me that anyone (including Jews of all nations)'- why single them out?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: podman
Date: 24 May 05 - 10:46 PM

How much of a military effort would it take to stop the roving cowards known as janjaweed? Can't the AU put up at least that much in men and material?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Peace
Date: 24 May 05 - 10:57 PM

"Although that one got sorted out rather quickly after the first time our lads came under fire, it should have never happened."

I think you are talking about this man.

Helluva leader. I went to a lecture/presentation given by two corporals and one sergeant from the peacekeeping forces he led. Word is he didn't let them down, and he took the flak for telling both Ottawa and the UN in NYC to kindly 'get their shit together'. Remarkable thing about Major-General Lewis MacKenzie is that he took the same risks as his men did. Gotta love a leader like that. And they did. I don't look upto many people these days, but he's one of 'em.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 05 - 11:42 PM

There are several articles about what is going on there right now in this link:

Yahoo search

This article discusses NATO's and the EU's involvement and support:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/050525/21/ugxo.html

This article discusses the African Union's decision to not allow non African Union forces on the ground in Sudan, as well as Canada's involvement and assistance:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050517/ca_pr_on_wo/darfur_summit_2

Excerpt...

TRIPOLI, Libya (CP) - Seven African leaders meeting in the Libyan capital have rejected any intervention by non-African countries in Sudan's western Darfur region, and have authorized Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to carry on trying to get conflicting parties to reach a settlement.

In a statement issued at the end of the two-day meeting Tuesday, leaders of Egypt, Libya, Chad, Nigeria, Sudan, Gabon and Eritrea decided to "reject any foreign intervention in the Darfur problem, and dealing with it should be through its African framework."

In Brussels, Belgium, the African Union's president, Alpha Oumar Konare, said at NATO headquarters he was seeking logistical support but insisted that troops on the ground will be exclusively African. NATO will consider the request Wednesday.

The Sudanese ambassador to Canada has said her country would not allow Canadian troops into Darfur despite an assistance package from the minority Liberal government, announced last Thursday, that included up to 100 military advisers to help the African Union maintain peace in the war-ravaged region.

The Globe and Mail reported Tuesday that Ottawa would respect Sudan's wishes.

Paul Martin's Liberal government had proposed a $170-million assistance package for Darfur that included "an initial deployment of up to 100 Canadian military intelligence officers, strategic planners and logistics experts to assist the African Union peacekeeping operation in the region with military planning, intelligence and transport."

Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki, invited to the summit by Gadhafi, met with Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir on Monday in what the official Libyan news agency described as a step toward a "historic reconciliation." The two countries had accused each other of sheltering rebels their different territories.

The leaders called on other African countries to send more troops and police to reinforce the African Union's mission in Darfur and asked the international community to contribute by extending logistical support.

The African Union has about 2,400 troops and 244 civilian police trying to restore the peace in Darfur. On April 28 it voted to increase the force to 6,171 military personnel and 1,560 police by the end of September.

The seven African leaders said they would support reconciliation efforts between the people of Darfur, pay compensation and "try crime suspects in Darur according to the national judicial system."

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 24 May 05 - 11:51 PM

Canada offers "an initial deployment of up to 100 Canadian military intelligence officers, strategic planners and logistics experts to assist the African Union peacekeeping operation in the region with military planning, intelligence and transport."

This was refused but then they, "...asked the international community to contribute by extending logistical support."

I don't get it. Isn't that what Canada was offering?

Whats wrong with this picture?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Peace
Date: 24 May 05 - 11:59 PM

Good question. Canada has as more experience with peacekeeping than any military in the world. Very good question.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:01 AM

What was refused were the troops. The African Union has accepted the logistical and financial support.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Peace
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:10 AM

IMO, that will leave them where they are. Money's good; logistics makes sense. But without advice from military advisors who can assess the capabilities and fortitude of the troops who will be doing the job, there are going to be more casualties than there 'should' be.

No offence.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:12 AM

I suspect that they will be benefitting from the advice from countries like Canada, but it will be African Union troops who carry out the advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Peace
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:16 AM

Could be that they're trying to 1) 'temper' their troops 2) and develop a NCO corp. However, it will be bloody.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:46 AM

Carol C. - If logical support is what they want, why refuse intelligence officers, strategic planners and transport?

Thats the "troops" that were being offered.

Why turn it down?

I think Sudan doesn't want too many eyes on the ground. I think the Sudanese govt. doesn't want Canada to know that they are in "cahoots" with the U.S. I also think that the Arab govt. of Sudan knows that the African Union doesn't stand a chance of defeating the Arabs.

By allowing Canada or any other country to contribute meaningful support to the African tribes, how will the Arabs be able to get that pipeline through so that they can sell oil to the U.S.???

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 05 - 10:43 AM

Dianavan, it's not Sudan who refused troops. It is the African Union, which includes Egypt, Libya, Chad, Nigeria, Sudan, Gabon and Eritrea. I doubt that "troops" means the same thing as "intelligence officers and strategic planners". They can have all of those kinds of help stationed outside of Sudan while not using any of the actual troops (soldiers with guns) on the ground in Sudan.

If I were to try to guess about why they would want it this way, it would be that they are trying to establish some sovereignty within the African Union. Since there is a lot of oil in question, perhaps they want to make sure Sudan doesn't become another Iraq or Afghanistan, in which sovereignty exists only on paper, while the US and other countries are really in charge.

If you haven't already, I suggest reading the articles I posted links to. They do show that the African Union is not only accepting logistical and material help, they are actively seeking it out. And Canada is not the only country that is offering help. Nato and the European Union are also offering help.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 25 May 05 - 08:38 PM

Carol C. - From your post above: "The Sudanese ambassador to Canada has said her country would not allow Canadian troops into Darfur despite an assistance package from the minority Liberal government, announced last Thursday, that included up to 100 military advisers to help the African Union maintain peace in the war-ravaged region."

BTW - When I say Arabs, I mean the present Sudanese government.

NATO is considering a request to help - That doesn't mean they are helping. Please provide a link that tells me that anyone else is even trying to help.

Not that it matters because, according to your quote, "In a statement issued at the end of the two-day meeting Tuesday, leaders of Egypt, Libya, Chad, Nigeria, Sudan, Gabon and Eritrea decided to "reject any foreign intervention in the Darfur problem, and dealing with it should be through its African framework."

I think that the intention is to avoid 'foreign' involvement but I still wonder why Canada was stone-walled when they are already helping the African Union in a very limited capacity. Its not as if they were sending in the armed forces. The troops that were being offerred were logistical support, strategists, intelligence and transportation.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 05 - 09:45 PM

Dianavan, there is an important difference between those two quotes...

"The Sudanese ambassador to Canada has said her country would not allow Canadian troops into Darfur despite an assistance package from the minority Liberal government, announced last Thursday, that included up to 100 military advisers to help the African Union maintain peace in the war-ravaged region."

And from me...

"They can have all of those kinds of help stationed outside of Sudan while not using any of the actual troops (soldiers with guns) on the ground in Sudan."

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 05 - 10:55 PM

NATO is considering a request to help - That doesn't mean they are helping. Please provide a link that tells me that anyone else is even trying to help.

Had you read the links I already provided, you would have seen this:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/050525/21/ugxo.html

"The North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO) has agreed to provide air support, training and logistical help to African Union peacekeepers in Sudan's troubled region of Darfur.

NATO has agreed to provide the support in principle, ahead of an international meeting on the issue in Ethiopia later this week.

The alliance says it will help the African Union, which is expanding the number of troops in Darfur to 7,700 immediately and is considering a force of 12,000 by the end of the year.

The agreement will be discussed further on Thursday, when UN secretary-general Kofi Annan will meet EU and NATO leaders.

If the agreement is officially approved, it will be the first time NATO has had a mission in Africa.

However, NATO troops would be involved in a support role only.

The European Union has agreed to provide similar help."

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 28 May 05 - 03:00 PM

From Reuters -

ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - Donors have pledged nearly $300 million to fund a bigger African Union (AU) force to help end fighting in Sudan's western Darfur region, AU officials said on Friday.

The officials said Canada gave the biggest contribution of $133 million (C$168 million), followed by the United States with $50 million and Britain with $12 million. Smaller donations will come from other countries. The AU had requested $466 million to more than triple its force to about 7,900 troops.

"The donors also agreed to provide helicopters, armored personnel carriers, trucks and fuel," an AU official said.

...and how mush is going into Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 30 May 05 - 01:10 AM

Here is a very good article regarding the the number of troops needed to end the violence in Darfur. It is becoming quite obvious that the AU simply does not have the strategies, troops or transportation needed to tackle the job. In addition, the rest of the world is not contributing enough money for the AU to be effective.

http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=9795

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 01:57 PM

and now the U.S. has decided not to support a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur to stop what the U.S has described as genocide.

I guess this means the U.S. thinks genocide is O.K.

What are they thinking?

http://www.thenews.com.pk/update_detail.asp?id=12333

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 03:38 PM

refresh