Posted on 03/20/2006 9:57:47 AM PST by tallhappy
Like bombin Taleban and Al Q in Afghanistan perhaps? Oh wait a minute they are!
De Hoop Scheffer said that when the UN request is made, ``the NATO allies will be ready.''
De Hoop Scheffer is either loudmouthed or he has assurance of President Bush that 20.000 GIs are going to Darfur. Nobody in Europe is interested in this conflict - no matter what lip-service is done - and nobody will send troops in noteworthy amount. I.e. the French (the by far closest ally of Germany) want to have a European security force in Kongo (BTW - something quite senseless) and in the moment we have a really fierce discussion here in Germany if we will provide the (really "frightening" - bad bad sarcasm) force of 500 (!) men. In Sudan Germany has even less interests. Maybe we Germans will provide 150 men or even 200, since Merkel (in difference to Schroeder) does not want to provoke anybody in Washington. Anyway it will not help Sudan and it will be a dishonest gesture.
Maybe a discussion is nessecary about the future role of NATO. While most Europeans just see it as a solely defensive alliance restricted to defensive actions, America obviously want to solve the global threats offensivley through preemptive strikes with the help of NATO. Such a doctrine will not be enforceable in Europe. Since NATO is -just like the UN- a multilateral organisation, it will be difficult to use it the way President Bush likes to. Therefore it would be just honest to redefine it and to search for a compromise that correlates to the interests of both sides of the Atlantic. Sometimes a peaceful divorce is better than a poisoned marriage.
We already had troops in Sudan since about 2002. It was in very limited and in part "clandestine" until a little was reported on in 2004 or so. These missions are still ongoing.
Sudan is part of the much bigger GWOT. Bin Laden spent quite a bit of time there. Some of the people who we are fighting in Iraq are actually from there. The government in Sudan was backed by some of the more vicious Arab/Islamic states for a long time.
Example: Saudi Arabia use to send lots of aid there. However, in 1991 they realized that their "Muslim brothers" are rooting for the bad guy (aka Saddam) and the tap from the Saudi government was shut off. In fact Bin Laden who swore to over throw the government of Saudi Arabia ended up staying there for some time to the Saudi's dismay.
What you have in Sudan is a situation where the Muslims were backed for years by some Arab states and were basically committing genocide on the Christians in the South. While not a religious issue for us, it surely was one for those in power in Sudan. Nevertheless, Sudan was and remains a breeding ground for Jihadists. It's a good place to go unnoticed and slip away for some time if need be. Sudan is in the much larger international threat picture a problem not because Sudan can launch a missile or develop a nuke like Iran soon will if unchecked, but because it's a breeding ground and "no mans land" where bad guys can safely hang out. Sudan tends to be a place not were the money comes from, but the "bodies" that do the fighting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict
It was just a matter of time before the Liberals got us involved in Africa. They were on CSpan a few weeks back detailing plans to do just this. (Small room, fifteen people at the seminar). Africa was to be the US top priority, and they were moving heaven and earth to make this happen. Looks like they made it happen.
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.