Senate Debate on the Sudan

[The Duke]

I'd like to start a Senate debate on the administration's initiative in Sudan.  I am available for testimony.

[King]

You should have given the radical domestic groups notice, whats a senate debate without a protest rally?

[Nym90]

I too am available for questioning.

[StevenNick]

What exactly are we debating?

[The Duke]

The administration is going to take action against the government of Sudan for their genocide in Darfur and their reputation of aiding terrorist groups.

Check "Cabinet Meeting", "Live from the Pentagon", and "The Region" for the evolution of our decision.

[JohnFKennedy]

Ok then,

Will we be deploying our forces to the region?

(If yes) Will Atlasian Forces be acting alone in the region or will we be a part of or leading a coalition of nations in this action?

(If yes to first question but no to second) How do we expect to control problems in the Darfur region alone as it is about the size of France?

[The Duke]

Senator Kennedy,

We will be deploying special ops personnel for sure, but we do not expect to deploy any large ground force to fight comabt missions.  Afghanistan-esque is the kind of troop commitment you will see.

I can tell you that, although the situation diplomatically has not totally firmed up, we will not be acting alone.  We have troop commitments and basing rights from a number of countries, but I will not at this time divulge who they are out of concern for operational secrecy.  Many African nations have expressed a desire to aid their fellow black Africans in Darfur.

As for Darfur, yes it is large, but much of it is barren desert.  Only some areas are populated, and this is where any peacekeepers would be needed.  There's no need to guard sand dunes, only civilians.  If we are tasked with peacekeeping, we will be able to monitor movement of any hostiles via UAVs since there won't be anywhere for them to hide in the desert.  We can then direct airpower against them.  If we send our own peacekeepers, they will be air mobile (helicopters) and rapidly deployable.  Mobility and reconaissance will be force multiplyers.

[JohnFKennedy]

Thank you for answering my questions Secretary Ford.

[StevenNick]

I have some questions for the secretary of defence.  First of all, what exactly do we hope to accomplish by our troop deployments to the Suden?  How will we measure when the job is done?  What is our exit strategy?

[The Duke]

StevenNick,

As I said, we will not be making a large deployment of troops.

We hope to accomplish several things.  The first, is to end the genocide in Darfur.  The second is to give the SPLA the edge it needs in the Civil War.  The third is to get the Bashir government to disband the Janjaweed militia.  The fourth is to get the Bashir government to eject all terrorists in their country and to cooperate on intelligence matters.  Fifth, is to get Omar Bashir himself to step down as head of state in Sudan and go smewhere in exile.  This opens the way to a lasting political solution.

We will know the job is done when our objectives are met.

The exit strategy is as follows.  We will defeat the northern government's military and paramilitary forces, and when this is done, the US will end combat operations.  We will assemble an international peacekeeping force in Darfur, mostly of African troops, to secure that area and protect it.  The US will not be required to deploy a large ground force, because local militias and police will be able to handle the security for the most part.

[StevenNick]

Sec. Ford,

Thank you for your answers to my questions.  I have only one further question:  How are we planning on ending the genocide and accomplishing our goals without a large troop deployment?

[The Duke]

Sen. StevenNick,

Our basic plan is use air power to aid indigenous military forces, namely the SPLA.  Think Afghanistan.  We gave close air support to the northern alliance, who did the legwork for us.  This will be similar.

[Platypus]

The exit strategy is as follows.  We will defeat the northern government's military and paramilitary forces, and when this is done, the US will end combat operations.

How can yopu be certain this will be the case? We were meant to beat the Vietnamese communists, but ended up ibn a messy and eventually unsucessful war on the other side of the world. How can we be sure this won't be the case again?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which nations? All nations in Africa are on Amnesty International's watchlist, some wth more severe catergories then others. It is better to have two allies wth no problems then 50 with 50.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you feeli it is wise to allow the local militias and police to run this kind of operation? Haven't our previous experiences taught us anything?

[The Duke]

Sen. hughento,

We will not enter another Vietnam because there will not be a massive commitment of ground forces.

Amnesty International, if I am not msitake, has also criticized the US for still having the death penalty.  I'm not going to write up a war plan based on Amensty International's recommendation of who my allies should be.

I do think its wise to involve locals.  Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.  In the areas of Iraq where we cooperated with the locals (Kurdistan) things are peaceful, and in places we didn't cooperate (Sunni Triangle) things are messy.  In Afghanistan, things have gone very smoothly, largely because the local power borkers were always consulted.It's their country, they'll need to take a part in their own defense.

[Lunar]

200 French troops already in Chad ready to be deployed, along with military planes.  Strictly humanitarian, but still useful to complement whatever the US sends.  Humanitarian mission with guns into a violent region often ceases to be strictly humanitarian after a short while anyway.

Link (scroll down on the page to the bottom fo the "Related" box on the right")

Not trying to interfere with your debate, just adding information

[The Duke]

200 French troops already in Chad ready to be deployed, along with military planes.  Strictly humanitarian, but still useful to complement whatever the US sends.  Humanitarian mission with guns into a violent region often ceases to be strictly humanitarian after a short while anyway.

Link (scroll down on the page to the bottom fo the "Related" box on the right")

Not trying to interfere with your debate, just adding information

Thank you for the info.

[JohnFKennedy]

Would all Senators please vote on whether or not we authorize the deployment of military forces to the Sudan.

Please vote Yea or Nay.

Also please vote on whether we grant supplemental appropriations to the Department of Defense for the actions.

Please Vote Yea or Nay.

[JohnFKennedy]

Yea on both counts.

[The Duke]

Here is the text of the two bills.  The first is simple use of force.  The second is the appropriation of money for the operation in Sudan and some additional money for maintenance of vehicles.  When 1st Cavalry redeployed to Iraq at the last rotation, they had to go in without some of their armored vehicles because we didn't have the money for new tracks.

Use Of Force Resolution

Section 1

1. The Atlas Senate hereby authorizes the use of military force in against the government of Sudan.

2. The Atlas Senate resolves to support our soldiers when they in harm's way.


Supplemental Appropriations Bill

Section 1

1. The Senate appropriates $26 billion for operations in Sudan from bases in Eritrea, Chad, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda.

2. If any funds for military operations shall not be spent during the course of these operations, they shall be redirected to the Treasury.

Section 2

1. The Senate appropriates $4 billion in supplemental appropriations for maintenance and repairs of military vehicles.

[Platypus]

I will vote yes for the first bill. Te second one has a large problem-it says East africa. Whilst I know that we will need to use neighbouring countries in the aid of Sudan, thuis needs to be either specific to Sudan or to Sudan and our regional allies.Also, is all of the $4 billion necessary? I understand that for best practice, maybve doule that is needed, for for minimal casualties, and maximum efficiency, is $4 billion the right number?

I also suggest that the Department finds ways to be more efficient, especially with vehicles and transport, but this can wait until after the Sudan crisis, I believe.

[The Duke]

Senator Hugh,

I understand your concern over the words "East Africa".  I think that since we will be using other countries for basing, we needed to say East Africa.  We have no reason to attack any other country in East Africa, and we hope that you will trust the president not to move beyond the spirit of the resolution.

As for the $4 billion, we have tanks with no treads and helicopters with no rotors.  Sand takes a heavy toll on equipment, and yes I believe it is all needed to refurbish weapon systems across the military.  I know you want our troops to have the best weapons, but I understand your concern over cost.

[Platypus]

I can agree to accepting the $4 billion ollars, but I would request that you look into ways of imporving vehicle and transport costs without 'skimping'.

Again, I have problems with East Africa. That could be anything from South Africa to Egypt via the Seychelles if the President wanted to interpret it that way.

I would once again request you limit it to just Sudan and our regional allies.

[The Duke]

Wording changed.

We don't have basing rights from all those countries, only Eritrea and Chad, but the others may change their minds at some point and I don't want to tie our hands.

[Platypus]

Thank you, Secreatary. I hope you can understand my 'pigheadedness' on this issue.

[The Duke]

Thank you, Secreatary. I hope you can understand my 'pigheadedness' on this issue.

I understand completely.  I remember a couple of wars in American history wher imprecise wording led to runaway policies.  If a future administration were to inherit an ongoing war in Sudan and wanted to abuse the wording of the resolution, all our worst fears would be realized.