Regards, Ivan
Posted on 07/23/2004 3:35:03 PM PDT by MadIvan
BRITAIN stands ready to send 5,000 troops to Sudan, the head of the Army said yesterday in a sign that a deployment to the war-torn African country is under active consideration.
General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of General Staff, said that the Army would be ready if called upon despite its commitments in Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan.
In the light of Tony Blair’s insistence on Thursday that Britain had a “moral responsibility to act” to prevent a humanitarian disaster in Sudan, Sir Mike said that a brigade of 5,000 soldiers could be ready and fully equipped if the Government decided to send in troops.
The ultimate decision will be for his political masters and would follow the EU fact- finding mission launched this week, but his comments show that a medium-size British deployment is one option under consideration.
Military experts said that this has been made possible by a reduction of British operations in the Balkans which has freed up more than the requisite 5,000 troops.
But it would leave the Armed Forces at full stretch and put extra pressure on the Government to scale back the extensive cutbacks in manpower set out by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, this week.
In an interview for Hardtalk on BBC News 24, General Jackson said: “If need be, we will be able to go to Sudan. I suspect we could put a brigade together very quickly indeed.”
Asked how many troops that would entail, he replied: “Five thousand.”
Mr Blair refused on Thursday to rule out military action but said that Britain was not “yet” at that point. Observers are warning of a humanitarian disaster on the scale of the Rwandan slaughter unless the international community acts to end the Sudanese civil war.
General Jackson decided to speak out even though the Sudanese Foreign Minister has warned Britain against meddling in the country’s internal affairs. Mustafa Oman Ismail said that Khartoum would pull out the Sudanese Army and leave Britain as an “occupation army” facing the same opposition as the coalition in Iraq.
Hilary Benn, the International Development Secretary, yesterday defended Britain’s handling of the crisis. He said that Britain was the largest cash donor and was leading international action to get the Sudanese Government to end the violence.
A million people are facing starvation and disease after being driven from their homes in the Darfur region by Arab militias.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
Thank you, Britain. It's the right thing.
Why does Kipling's "Take up the White Man's Burden" suddenly come to mind?
US should be sending troops since the US proclaimed this WOT first. Britain should not be alone.
Perhaps they're still on bed rest. Don't wake 'em.
lol
Why not skip the preliminaries and send a joint US-GB force to Saudi Arabia? That's where the wahhabi ideology, the funding, and the moral support is all coming from. Don't pick off the foo fighters when you can go straight to the mother ship.
God Bless Tony Blair! I hope this goes forward and that the USA can spare and equal number to join in saving whats will otherwise be a 1,000,000 innocent deaths.
And Lord Kitchener is saying "Here Here!" from the Great Beyond.
Where are the Canadians in all this? Don't they have soldiers ready to fight for human rights? Or do they need to get permission from the UN first? I don't think Canada has been particularly aggressive in demanding the UN get involved in this.
Where is kofi and crew, down at the dayroom drinking gin? kofi man of the year and doesn't give a damn about those people over there in Sudan. Get The UN Out Of The USA.Bush/Cheney2004
Germany and France are still milking their profiles from duty. Bush/Cheney 2004
US may have proclaimed the WOT but did not start it. Al Queada did. But before urging throwing our troops into the breech in Sudan while Iraq remains a killing field, one should ask: who has borne the brunt of the WOT thus far? And this is in no way to be construed that Britain's contribution has not been significant and appreciated.
Because it fits? From Sudan to Zimbabwe to Congo to South Africa, sub-Sahara Africa is a basket case
The Brits should take along lots of spare guns and ammo. Lots of leftover AK's have been captured from all over, might as well put them to good use. Train the southerners on how to keep the Arabs at bay, and leave behind lots of ammo. Let them sort it out themselves
The US has born the brunt of course, but Sudan is a threat and they fund terrorism aside from killing millions of people.
The Canadians have recently reduced the size of their already miniscule armed forces. That's where they are. And please don't remind me of their significant WWII contributions (don't mean you, xm177e2).
Good idea. But hasn't much of this captured/found weaponry been destroyed?
Amen. We love you, Tony Blair. Really, we appreciate anything you could do in the Sudan. We only wish we could join, but we've got a major domestic political problem.
If I follow you correctly, I think the Demonrats might be inclined to go along with sending troops to Sudan since it is a black nation. But President Bush would not need congressional approval to send 5,000 troops would he?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.