LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 110
0 members and 110 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 06-17-2004, 10:23 PM   #2444
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
There He Goes Again

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
What post hoc rationalizations? And if we had a military that was, say 2X what it is, I would go to Sudan.
It is pretty easy to have 2x more deployable military strength. All we need is a combination of good diplomacy and additional reserves.

But why 2x for Sudan? If you are focused on a humanitarian missian to Sudan, it is a relatively easy task -- there is a clean geographic break between the north and south, you need to soften up defenses enough to get a few thousand person force stationed in a cordon across the middle of the country, and then you can handily protect the Christian south and contain the north.

If you have broader geo-political goals, you need control of the ports and the Nile around Khartoum (but probably not Khartoum itself until it's just given to you). Both are strategically relatively simple and exposed locations; stay out of the swamps and you'll be OK. Of course, you probably want to protect the oil pipeline, and that would likely be the most significant military task.

None of this requires 2x troop strength. If we're just separating the country, we won't need to do much to police the south, since it really will be fairly friendly territory given that it is overwhelmingly Christian, armed, and seeking autonomy, and the North we'd not be occupying, just containing. This is the sort of military task we could assign to Italy if we had her support. Of course, we've got Poland, and with a little bit of help from our planes, they could take care of the rest.

There is even an easy exit strategy - split the country up, and let the South self-govern. Give them military and humanitarian support for 10-15 years, and we'd have a success on our hands. Of course, if you get more ambitious, and want to do something with the North, you have bigger issues, but we can deal with humanitarian issues without doing that.

So why the hestiancy? Sudan's three steps below Afghanistan in terms of a military target, and significantly easier politically. I have my own reasons for not ordering Poland in tomorrow, but what are yours?
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:04 AM.