Another in the series, How to Think About Darfur, by James North:
Here's a link to the most important single magazine article I have read over at least the past 5 years; it appeared in the British publication Prospect. Bartle Bull describes the IEDs — improvised explosive devices — which were (and probably still are) responsible for 80 per cent of the American casualties in the Iraq War. IEDs are homemade roadside bombs, detonated with wires or even by cellphones, that the Iraqi guerrillas have used with such terrible success against American armored patrols.
Bull explains: "The IED might seem like a relatively low-tech piece of weaponry in a military epoch of lasers, unmanned drones and smart bombs. And it might appear a humble opponent for a U.S. military establishment 3 million strong that consumes $400 billion a year. But it is the defining weapon of America's war in Iraq. . ."
Most of Bull's article is technical, describing the ongoing deadly duel; each defensive innovation by the Americans prompts successful adjustments by the Iraqis. First the Iraqis buried artillery shells, then they shifted to anti-tank mines, then they switched from the roadbed itself to the side of the road. Bull says, "It's like pest control, or the antibiotics business: one side develops a response, and the other side innovates around it. . ."
He brushes past the human element, but you can easily imagine what is happening here. Most Iraqis may be not planting the explosives themselves. But they do know where their neighbors are hiding the bombs. And the sight of foreign troops patrolling their streets for more than 5 years now is not making them likely to issue any warnings.
Part of the Darfur solidarity movement wants the U.S., or NATO, to send troops to the western Sudan. Such a provocative invasion would have been questionable even before the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq; see Somalia 1992.
But the IED has changed everything. The potential resistance in Sudan – a nation with plenty of people who already know how to use weapons – recognizes that it could bury these relatively low-tech devices and inflict awful casualties on Western soldiers.
The American neoconservatives who predicted an American "cakewalk" in Iraq have a lot to answer for. Shouldn't the Darfur solidarity movement be paying attention?
Related posts:
{ 6 comments }
here is an interview of Bill Kelsey, libertarian activist and sometimes relief pilot for an NGO in Africa, discusses the crises in Congo and Sudan, what he learned about libertarianism growing up in the Middle East and how it relates to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/09/05/bill-kelsey/
to help illumine the issue…
expect the same for darfur as has happened to somalia…
the war for resources between china, russia and the u.s slips further away from the control of politicos here in the u.s …as fears grow.
the war on terror is the only card the u.s seems to be able to play on the world stage for some reason….
in zimbawe its the chineese also eating the americans lunch at the negotiating table…the only game the u.s seems to want to play is the neocon hegemony game.
It appears that China is thinking ahead while in action mode, while the USA continues working in typical reaction fashion.
from Jim Lobe of inter press service
"Somalia today is the most dangerous place in the world for humanitarian aid workers," according to Menkhaus. More than 20 humanitarian workers have been killed since January, while some 30 more have been kidnapped.
"The situation in Somalia today exceeds the worst-case scenarios conjured up by regional analysts when they first contemplated the possible impact of an Ethiopian military occupation," according to the report. "Over the past 18 months, Somalia has descended into terrible levels of displacement and humanitarian need, armed conflict and assassinations, political meltdown, radicalization and virulent anti-Americanism."
"We've gotten the exact opposite of what we set out to achieve," Menkhaus noted, including a "population radically angry at us and very fertile ground for al-Qaeda."
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07162008.html
"I have no sympathy for people who make others suffer. Nevertheless, I wonder at the International Criminal Court’s pick from the assortment of war criminals? Why al-Bashir?
Is it because Sudan is a powerless state, and the International Criminal Court hasn’t the courage to name George W. Bush and Tony Blair as war criminals?
Bush and Blair’s crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan dwarf, at least in the number of deaths and displaced persons, the terrible situation in Darfur. The highest estimate of Darfur casualties is 400,000, one-third the number of Iraqis who have died as a result of Bush’s invasion. Moreover, the conflict in the Sudan is an internal one, whereas Bush illegally invaded two foreign countries, war crimes under the Nuremberg Standard. Bush’s war crimes were enabled by the political leaders of the UK, Spain, Canada, and Australia. The leaders of every member of the “coalition of the willing to commit war crimes” are candidates for the dock.
But of course the Great Moral West does not commit war crimes. War crimes are charges fobbed off on people demonized by the Western media, such as the Serbian Milosovic and the Sudanese al-Bashir.
Every week the Israeli government evicts Palestinians from their homes, steals their land, and kills Palestinian women and children. These crimes against humanity have been going on for decades. Except for a few Israeli human rights organizations, no one complains about it. Palestinians are defined as “terrorists,” and “terrorists” can be treated inhumanely without complaint.
Iraqis and Afghans suffer the same fate. Iraqis who resist US occupation of their country are “terrorists.” Taliban is a demonized name. Every Afghan killed–even those attending wedding parties–is claimed to be Taliban by the US military. Iraqis and Afghans can be murdered at will by American and NATO troops without anyone raising human rights issues.
The International Criminal Court is a bureaucracy. It has a budget, and it needs to do something to justify its budget. Lacking teeth and courage, it goes after the petty war criminals and leaves the big ones alone."
"Part of the Darfur solidarity movement wants the U.S., or NATO, to send troops to the western Sudan."
From the SaveDarfur.org FAQs:
"We believe that the United States, under the President’s leadership, must lead the international effort to raise and deploy that UN peacekeeping force [to Darfur]."
http://www.savedarfur.org/pages/faq/#0
I see more and more of those green "Save Darfur" banners on churches and synagogues. It seems hypocritical, in both instances. Why don't churches care about the oppression of Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land, in locked-down Bethlehem where Christ was born? Why don't synagogues intervene constructively in the I/P conflict, where they are actually in a position to do something, rather than adopt Darfur as a smokescreen to deflect attention from what Jews are up to in Israel?
Sending peacekeepers to Darfur when there is no peace sounds like a pretext to get involved in another distant, unwinnable, fourth-generation guerrilla war. Ugh.
Oh well, never mind — the 'president' is otherwise occupied expanding the Afghan war front into Pakistan without its permission, according to a headline article in the Slimes.
Actually, this is what SHOULD have been done seven years ago in Afghanistan — just chase Osama across the countryside. The weak Afghan government of the day was in no position to stop the U.S.'s hot pursuit. It was totally unnecessary to overthrow it and assume the burdens of governance — unless the U.S. had another agenda.
But unlike Afghanistan, Pakistan is nuclear-armed and allegedly friendly. Cross-border raids into Pakistan aren't going to be well-received there, anymore than Mexican military raids into southwest border states would be appreciated by Americanos.
Airman Bush is a loose cannon. He has gone frickin' nuts in his last days, sparring with Russia in Georgia, shooting up Pakistan, and generally courting Armageddon on multiple fronts. Meanwhile, candidates Barry and Johnny are lickin' they chops to slide into the driver's seat and play the same video game. Flash! Bang! Insert one billion for another hour of playing.
Do we know the positions of the two candidates on military intervention in Darfur? The good old "humanitarian" intervention seems like something both of them are game for (and it dovetails nicely with the war on "Islamofascism").
Comments on this entry are closed.