Last week, the Washington Post published an op-ed by General Merill A. McPeak and Kurt Bassuener arguing that President Obama should establish a no-fly zone over Darfur. The idea has been proposed before, but was repeatedly shot down (pardon the pun) by humanitarian groups who (rightly) feared reprisals from the Sudanese government. However, the objections will be less vocal now that Bashir has booted 13 aid groups from Sudan after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant against him. Bashir also reportedly launched more air attacks. McPeak and Bassuener argue:
Air power plays a central role in Bashir’s military strategy, so establishing a no-fly zone remains the most promising initiative to halt the atrocities in Darfur. During her Senate confirmation hearing, Hillary Clinton acknowledged that such a proposal was under consideration. As a practical matter, imposing control over Sudanese airspace must involve NATO and European Union allies, in particular France, which has a suitable airfield at Abeche, in eastern Chad. Allied air forces could and should provide much of the force structure, principally fighter aircraft, but a U.S. contribution — especially of aerial refuelers and command-and-control aircraft — would be essential. About a squadron of each type of aircraft would be more than enough to end the impunity Sudanese military aviation now enjoys.
By taking away the Sudanese government’s freedom to use air power to terrorize its population, the West would finally get enough leverage with Khartoum to negotiate the entry of a stronger U.N. ground force. Effective military action in the form of a no-fly zone would not preclude a political resolution, as some suggest, but in fact would make diplomacy more effective by reducing Bashir’s options.
McPeak and Bassuener’s proposal is appealing, but the devil is in the details. After the 1991 Gulf War, the ceasefire agreement required that Iraq not deploy aircraft in the country. However, General Swartzkoff limited the restriction to fixed-wing aircraft. Simply put, Iraq could legally use attack helicopters, and they did just that. Even after a true no-fly zone was established (banning both fixed and rotary wing aircraft), civilians continued to suffer. In 1994 and 1996 State Department annual reports on human rights in Iraq admitted that the no-fly zones did little to protect civilians. Saddam simply switched from helicopter gunship to artillery bombardment (amongst other things).
I am always skeptical at using violence to stop violence. I agreed when aid groups opposed a no-fly zone over Darfur. Who else would know better what the region needs? But now Bashir has made the purely humanitarian option impossible. The US Air Force has been trying for years to justify their expensive toys which have played only token roles in Iraq and Afghanistan. I say give them Darfur’s sky.
Christopher R. Albon is a political science Ph.D. specializing in armed conflict, public health, human security, and health diplomacy.
Want more? Subscribe to Conflict Health through RSS or email.
{ 2 comments }
why not impose a no-fly zone over all Sudan, shut the barbarians down. I advocated doing just this 3 years ago.
The atrocities in Darfur are tremendous and the suffering continues. With the ousting of aid groups, the situation is highly likely to worsen. However, the points Chris makes in his article are shortsighted. Removing the air option from the Sudanese government does not equate to an ease on the suffering. A majority of the atrocities in Darfur are not from the GoS’ aircraft, but from the government funded rebel group, Janjiweed. Indeed, aircraft do occasionally, but rarely, attack the Darfur region. But to think the removal of this option as a solution is dangerous. Removing the air option would embolden the GoS and its allied rebel groups to increase the ground offensive. They do not need the air. Additionally, think about the repercussions. Now that the flying has stopped and ground attacks have increased, do you then establish rules of engagement (ROE) to strike those attacking Darfur refugees? If so, you’ve escalated a no-fly zone to non-Sudan aircraft bombing Sudan. Additionally, no amount of detail in ROE will ensure the aircraft can distinguish pro-Sudan rebel group from Darfur rebel group, such as the JEM (Justice and Equality Movement).
The answer is not a no-fly zone – it is proper Diplomacy. The rhetoric spouted must be consistent and informed by the entire situation in Darfur. Words matter and having the US ambassador to the UN comment that the United States supported the court’s action “to hold accountable those who are responsible for the heinous crimes in Darfur” is harmful. Harsh words, similar to a no-fly zone, will only embolden GoS’ continued actions in Darfur.
Finally, your comment of “The US Air Force has been trying for years to justify their expensive toys which have played only token roles in Iraq and Afghanistan” reflects a lack of knowledge and study of both history and the current conflicts. Ask any Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine on the ground who’s receiving fire and pinned down what they want – air power. To discount the contributions the Air Force brings to the current conflicts is terribly amiss. Aside from strike operations, the Air Force continues to provide 24/7 intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Additionally, the ever important missions of aero-medical airlift, supply/resupply airlift, and personnel recovery continue daily. Also, tankers keep Air Force, Naval, Army, and Marine assets refueled in the air. Blatant statements may appear to add impact to your article; however when not well researched only demonstrate a lack of credibility.
A no-fly zone is not the solution and alone would only worsen the situation. A proper approach to Darfur is Diplomacy. If the UN decides intervention is necessary, the only opportunity for success is a large coalition ground presence, supported by air, and ensuring aid is properly distributed/administered. But then again, would this even work?
Comments on this entry are closed.