re: "Will R2P become NMP"

Cdr Salamander at the Naval Institute Blog ("a venue for thoughtful, vigorous debate on naval and security policy") generated some decent lessons-learned while the civil war, er, revolution, er, "humanitarian intervention" was still going on.


Money quote(s):


"The Battle of Tripoli will work itself out, as will the conflict over time. We can pick it apart then in reasoned hindsight. There are other things a few levels out at the POL/MIL level that are a lot clearer and worth discussing."


As it did. The Law of Unintended Consequences, however, has not been suspended.


"Something that came out at the beginning; “Responsibility to Protect” known by the shorter, R2P. The concept has been embraced by decision makers such as US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice. A form of “Humanitarian Imperialism” – it is something that over the last few months we have heard less of. The reasons are clear; Libya still isn’t worth the bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier, and both sides are responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of civilians. So much was heard early that we were there to “protect civilians,” but time has shown that some civilians are more important than others. There is no appetite anywhere for Western boots on the ground to execute “R2P” in Libya’s cities. As long as African migrants are kept in Africa and the oil flows – NATO will be more than willing to move from R2P to NMP – Not My Problem. Few really believed that was the reason for intervention anyway – at least the serious." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)


R2P is just as scary a prospective "international norm" as anything else to have come down the pike in recent years. Yet, the more it becomes part of "international law," the less likely it will become anything more than what it is now: a figleaf for use when intervention is in support of some other, less noble-sounding, national interest.


Recall that once "genocide" became a crime under international law (and a treaty was widely signed that obligated states to act to prevent/stop it) all kinds of lawyering and tap-dancing ensued to call what were clearly ongoing programs of genocide from what they obviously were, just to avoid having to actually do anything about it.


"When sustainable logistics and baseline C4ISR are defined as “unique capabilities” – then the facts of NATO non-USA military capacity should be very clear."


Essentially, what are (with a straight face) termed the military capabilities of most (if not all) of our NATO allies amount, in an international sense, to the niche capabilities of our own various state National Guard entities. They provide often useful specialties, but can't function in combat unless they're embedded within a larger, coalition, deployment. Assumed (but un-said) is that the U.S. will always be there to provide the larger context and support.


"(T)he essential effectiveness and efficiency of the CV/S/N once again has been proven. Land based air has its place – but any distance makes the ability to provide persistent effects from the air over the battlespace prohibitively expensive compared to a carrier off shore."


CAA has, for years and in different venues, held that one of the essential characteristics of a superpower in the modern-to-current era are the ability to develop, deploy, and maintain global force projection capabilities. Since World War II and the dawn of the nuclear age, that has meant the following: inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBM) of the nuclear variety (may be ground or sea-based) and the aircraft carrier battle group.


(Experience has caused me to add expeditionary ground forces but let's not go down that particular rabbit hole today.)


If you've got an aircraft carrier (and the screening and support forces it requires to successfully deploy), you can project air power just about anywhere excepting the far interiors of Central Asia and Antarctica.


"Whatever happens in Libya will happen. No one outside a few fringe-types will light a candle for the Gadaffi family of thugs. They have been a blight on the planet for decades. What happens next will be up to the Libyan people. We should all wish them luck and hope that something positive can come out of this."


Hat tip to The Phibian at Cdr Salamander ("Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.").

8/23

re: "House Human Rights Committee Considers Christian Genocide in Sudan"

George McGraw at Big Peace gives a clear picture of ethnic cleansing.

Money quote(s):

"The Nuba people of Sudan’s Southern Kardofan region are being systematically exterminated in the midst of a developing genocide described as “the world’s next Rwanda.” "

These are the people from whom the region gets its traditional name of Nubia. Their culture predates that of the arabicized Sudanese muslims who dominate Sudan.

"Sudanese military forces under the command of President Omar Al Bashir are targeting civilians – particularly women and children – with both ground and air assaults in an effort to eradicate the Christian and ethnic Nuba populations. The move also aims to diminish capacity and support for the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), which has taken up arms in opposition to the violence."

Nothing surprising in any of that. It's how they roll. The SAF and Pres. Bashir can be relied upon, always, to oppress, massacre, or marginalize any of their fellow citizens who won't pretend they're Arabs.

"On June 5th Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) began the aerial bombardment of civilian targets followed by the house-to-house mass extermination of Christians, Nubans and SPLM by Sudan’s Popular Defense Force (PDF) – described by some as the “Al Qaeda of Sudan.” "

The SPLM (a.k.a. the SPLA or even SPLM/A) now has its own country, South Sudan. However there are plenty of its supporters north of the (mostly undefined) border in Sudan. Pres. Bashir clearly aims to change the facts on the ground to make that no longer the case.

"Egyptian peacekeepers stationed outside of the state capital (Kadugli) allowed government forces to enter the their base and separate Nubans and SPLM supporters from other civilians seeking shelter there. Sudanese forces then murdered them outside of the mission’s gates."

Anybody reading the news out of Cairo these days? Anybody going to be surprised at this behavior. Why wouldn't the Egyptian army allow their Sudanese brethren access to the UN compound and the civilians there?

"(T)he escalation in violence is directly linked to the disputed gubernatorial appointment of Ahmed Haroun, who like Bashir, is wanted for war crimes in Darfur by the International Criminal Court. In a recent open letter to the UN, Bishop Elnail recently declared that, “once again, we are facing the nightmare of genocide of our people in a final attempt to erase our culture and society from the face of the earth.” For his part, Mr. Phillips estimated that one half of the Nuban population has been exterminated by Northern military leaders since the 1980s."

The good bishop has this exactly right. This is genocide aimed at ethnic cleansing of what remains of Sudan. If you don't match Pres. Bashir's template of constitutes one of his true countrymen, then your life and livelihood is forfeit.

"As strafing and high-altitude bombing drive civilians into nearby caves, important agricultural plots have been left untended. Widespread food shortage and infrastructural destruction, coupled with mass internal displacement, are expected to contribute to a humanitarian emergency that Mr. Phillips characterized as “slow motion genocide by design.” "

It's a good plan, if ethnic cleansing is your goal. As things get worse, some will become refugees headed to South Sudan (a state without much in the way of resources themselves) to either die en route or become a burden to their neighbors.

"If nothing is done, violence in Southern Kardofan threatens to destabilize recent political independence in neighboring Southern Sudan, drawing it back into a state of active conflict with the North."

Unfortunately, this place is just so remote and there is so little U.S. interest (since U.S. oil companies pulled out decades ago) there that it's a miracle that the U.S. (and others) were able to get South Sudan pulled out of Sudan to begin with. There are going to be borders, and central governments dominated by ethno-religious politics are going to pursue policies of ethno-religious cleansing. And unless the "international community" is willing to "cowboy up" and do something about it, it's going to happen without much being done about it other than providing aid to the survivors.

Frankly, sometimes all that can be done is to bear witness. Not necessarily in silence, but take note nonetheless. And recall the Kennedy administration's admonition to "don't get mad, get even."

(There are some minor concrete things that should, quietly, be happening behind the scenes. Like making note of who the Egyptian peacekeepers, and their commanders, are, and making sure that none of them ever get a dime of U.S. military aid or training again, to say nothing of U.S. visas.. Blacklisting them from participation in future UN peacekeeping activities would seem too obvious to mention, but probably has to be. Having them court-martialed and hanged would be too much to hope for, I fear.)

re: "Ramping Up to Another Jihad Genocide in The Sudan?"

Andrew Bostom ("Uncreated, Uncreative Words") puts the situation in Nubia (i.e., South Kordofan) into historical perspective.

Money quote(s):

"(Y)et another jihad genocide may be under way in The Sudan—Arab Muslim mass murderers preying upon indigenous non-Arab, primarily Christian blacks—this time in the Nuba Mountains."

The Nuba Mountains are, mostly, in the central part of what is now (since the formerly semi-autonomous Southern Sudan is now independent South Sudan) southern Sudan.

"Conservative death toll estimates as of now suggest that the number is at least in the “hundreds,” with a minimum of 60,000 displaced.

The feckless UN peacekeeping presence confined to its Kadugli base, includes Egyptian peacekeepers, viewed as very sympathetic toward the Arab Khartoum government, and accused by many Nuba of being complicit in targeted assassinations within the U.N. camp sheltering displaced refugees."

This is a very old story for Sudan, predating independence by centuries.

"Jihad depredations against the Nuba are a recurring phenomenon in Sudan’s history. Winston Churchill’s accounts from The River War as a young British soldier fighting in the Sudan at the end of the 19th century, described the chronic situation, in its larger context"

Looks like I'll have to find this book.

"During the 1990s, some 500,000 Nuba were killed when the Arab Muslim Khartoum government declared jihad against them."

Governments declaring jihad against their "own" people? That can't be a good thing, can it? I suppose it's easier if you don't actually see them as either "yours" or "people."

"The Nuba’s chronic plight raises yet again this overarching moral and existential question for our era of resurgent global jihad posed in 1999 by the late southern Sudanese leader John Garang:

Is the call for jihad against a particular people a religious right of those calling for it, or is it a human rights violation against the people upon whom jihad is declared and waged?"

John Garang, who died in 2005, got his start as a South Sudanese leader when he was sent to quell a mutiny among Sudanese troops in the south who had been ordered to move to the north (where they didn't want to go).

He joined them. (Before that, he was an officer in the Sudanese Armed Forces.)

re: "Another Day, Another Muslim Massacre"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ recounts his evolving perspective.

Money quote(s):

"After 9/11 I was pretty sure what I wanted to see was Option 2. When Bush took nukes off the table, I was disappointed.

I did then, and still do, criticize Bush for being a Born-Again Christian. By which I mean: informed by the Christian ethics of mercy and regard for human life.

Which I thought were nice and everything but... too constraining.

After 9/11, I had a much less Christian sort of thought about how to deal with a murder cult.

Bush sort of changed my mind, and pursued, I thought, what seemed to be a less savage, more noble course. I gave him credit for that. Maybe I (and people who thought like me) were in fact giving license to genocidal hatred. Maybe Bush's decision to keep things civilized was a good one.

I was proud of what Bush, and the troops fighting for America, did for me, and for all of us. It wasn't just that they delivered justice -- justice could be more cheaply delivered via massive bombs dropped on cities and towns. They also delivered something finer than justice. Compassion, mercy.

I wouldn't have chosen that course -- but I was glad that cooler (or, warmer) heads chose it for me.

But as this goes on I am going back to thinking those are expensive luxuries and I no longer wish to pay for such things."

re: "Libya: Did Citizen Evacuations Stand in the Way of Better Policy?"

Peter Spiro at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") is, as always, asking some of the right questions.

(Even if he is a lawyer.)

Money quote(s):

"It now seems to be the conventional wisdom (hard to shake once in place) that the U.S. has been slow off the mark on Libya. That may have consequences for U.S. standing in the region."

Conventional wisdom isn't always wrong. It just seems like it most of the time.

Still, perception influences reality, even if it does not (as some believe) equate to reality.

"The Administration got a defense out (on background) that it held off on more decisive action — such as imposing the sanctions that were finally put in place last night — pending the evacuation from Libya of U.S. citizens, U.S. diplomats in particular. As always, safety of U.S. citizens is said to be the highest priority in such unstable situations. Apparently, the U.S. embassy compound in Tripoli is poorly secured, with no Marine guards in place to defend."

No marines in Tripoli? Sounds like the inspiration for a Country & Western song, perhaps using the "Do They Know It's Christmas" tune from 1985.

But I digress.

"That’s a tough place to be. Obviously you don’t want to end up in a hostage situation (the politics of that would be horrific for Obama in addition to all the other reasons — the Carter comparison perfected). But does it have to be the case that U.S. policy itself is held hostage?

Perhaps the lesson here is to have contingency plans in place to pull U.S. officials out of such situations quickly (as of today, think Sanaa, Libreville, Yaounde, among others). That would have the downside of leaving other U.S. citizens without exit assistance, at least not in place. But many of them are taken care of by their corporate employers. Many others will be dual nationals, and only nominally American, and should be able to fend for themselves as well as locals."

There are contingency plans for lots of things. The Marine Corps has something of a sideline in NEOs (non-combatant evacuation operations), but some of the sketchier places tend to rather out-of-the-way and would need some assistance to get out and that assistance would take time getting there.

Recall that during the Rwandan genocide, our embassy folks had to convoy out of the country on their own, something that good RSOs and consular chiefs keep in the back of their minds as one of the nightmare scenarios to prepare against.

The argument about dual nationals has come up before, and The Onion recently did a piece lampooning the American practise of having to evacuate visitors to places nobody in their right mind should want to visit. I don't have an answer to either question, but it's nice to see people asking in public fora what consular officers sometimes ask each other quietly, where the public can't hear us.

(Don't get me wrong, we'll do everything we can to help, but think of us as firemen who can't help but wonder to one another just why you were playing with matches.)

re: "When To Use America's Military To End Genocide: A Conversation with Nicholas Kristof"

Hugh Hewitt summarizes a recent interview.

Money quote(s):

"The U.S. under Bush used two interventions to topple two regimes in rapid indeed amazing fashion. It proved far less competent in establishing successor governments, though in the past year in Iraq we have seen new tactics bring about extraordinary progress, and we are hoping for the same sort of turning in Afghanistan."

"President Obama has a unique opportunity to establish rules under which the U.S. will move decisively to end slaughter in countries where the U.S. does not need to worry about significant military opposition, such as Sudan and Zimbabwe. Because of the new president's standing in the Third World and because of his party's complete control of the Congress, he has it in his power to lay down the law for Bashir and Mugabe and bring their murderous regimes to an end, and by doing so to send a message to the rest of the continent that dictatorship has its limits, and widespread slaughter as in Zimbabwe and outright genocide as in Sudan will not be tolerated."

&

"For the next three-and-a-half-years, the United States means President Obama and the people who influence his decisions. The new president has already approved of the use of deadly force in the mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and at sea off the course of Somalia. His advisors and those who influence them and him should begin working out a larger framework for deploying the awesome might of the American military where tens of thousands of lives are at stake, none of them American."

JO - None dare call it Genocide

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Observer

None dare call it Genocide

COMMON SENSE

JOHN MAXWELL

Sunday, June 29, 2008

It may come as a surprise to many more Europeans than to American white people that a great many intelligent and sophisticated people of African ancestry are convinced that there are important classes of whites who are conspiring to wipe them off the face of the Earth.

JOHN MAXWELL

This may be the most pervasive conspiracy theory of all because it is made more credible by an impressive history of genocidal attacks on black people and other non-whites. Advocates for 'Indians' of the Amazon say the natives believe they are threatened not simply by greedy ranchers and gold miners but by missionaries from the United States, hoping to clear oil-rich areas of the indigenous populations as in Darfur. In Bolivia, for example, the recent attempt by some provinces to disaffiliate themselves from the rest of the state is seen as a kind of proto-genocide aimed at separating the richest land from control by the majority Indian populations.

Read the whole article here.

TO - Father of Miss Oregon investigated on suspicion of visa fraud

The Oregonian

Father of Miss Oregon investigated on suspicion of visa fraud


by Michelle Roberts, The Oregonian

Friday March 13, 2009, 5:30 AM

U.S. immigration officials are investigating the father of the reigning Miss Oregon on suspicion of visa fraud after an international war crimes tribunal reported that he had served in a military unit that slaughtered unarmed Muslims in Bosnia in 1995.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Federal prosecutors say that Serbian national Milenko Krstic, 52, father of Miss Oregon Danijela Krstic, 24, lied in 1998 when he was applying for refugee status, stating under oath that he had never served in the military.

Six years after Krstic settled in Beaverton in 1999 with his wife and two daughters, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia reported to U.S. immigration authorities that Krstic had, in fact, served in the Army of Republika Srpska.

Krstic's militia, also known as the Bosnian Serb Army, has been designated by the International Court of Justice in The Hague as having participated in war crimes, genocide and ethnic cleansing during the Bosnian civil war in the early 1990s."

"A three-judge panel rejected Krstic's argument that he couldn't be prosecuted for possessing an authentic immigration document, or "green card," even though it had been obtained by means of a false statement."

&

"In 1998, three years after leaving the military, Krstic and his family emigrated to the United States. As part of a refugee application, he filled out an I-590 form, which requires, among other things, applicants to disclose foreign military service.

Krstic contends that "someone wrote 'not served' in English" on the form. Federal officials, however, say that Krstic denied having served in the military "during a sworn, personal interview administered in Belgrade."

Krstic and his family were granted refugee status and admitted to the United States. They settled in the Portland area.

In 1999, the family applied to become lawful permanent residents. As part of the application, Krstic filled out an I-485 form, which also asks applicants to report any prior foreign military service. Krstic again did not disclose his service. He was issued an alien registration receipt card, also called a green card.

In 2005, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia reported Krstic's military service to U.S. immigration authorities. Federal agents entered Krstic's home and interviewed him. He admitted to serving in the military but denied committing war crimes."

TA - Bound for the US? Best take a number

The Australian

Bound for the US? Best take a number


Steve Creedy January 08, 2009


Article from: The Australian


NAZIS need not apply, terrorists can forget about it and spies can turn around now.

Drug traffickers are out and people who have been convicted of moral turpitude should not even bother getting a cab to the airport.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"From Monday, US-bound Australians will be required to declare that they have not been involved in acts of sabotage, genocide and Nazi persecutions before they leave the country.

A new system that allows US authorities to perform police checks before passengers arrive on American soil requires passengers to obtain an Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA) number prior to checking in at the airport."

"The soon-to-be compulsory system has been operating on a voluntary basis since August and requires travellers to fill out and submit an online form. Required information includes address, passport details, phone numbers and email address as well as those uniquely American questions optimistically asking passengers to declare any past evil-doings.

The information is checked against law enforcement databases to determine eligibility to travel but does not guarantee admission to the US."

&

"Those who applied for an ESTA number and were told they were not eligible to travel would need to go to the consulate."