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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Duke]

Sudan is on the State Department's Terror Watch list, how are they not a threat?