http://conflicthealth.com/can-the-us-air-force-save-darfur/ Armed Conflict, Public Health, Human Security, and Health Diplomacy Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:47:36 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://conflicthealth.com/can-the-us-air-force-save-darfur/comment-page-1/#comment-448 JH Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:13:21 +0000 http://warandhealth.com/can-the-us-air-force-save-darfur/#comment-448 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? 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?

]]> http://conflicthealth.com/can-the-us-air-force-save-darfur/comment-page-1/#comment-447 GB Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:46:37 +0000 http://warandhealth.com/can-the-us-air-force-save-darfur/#comment-447 why not impose a no-fly zone over all Sudan, shut the barbarians down. I advocated doing just this 3 years ago. why not impose a no-fly zone over all Sudan, shut the barbarians down. I advocated doing just this 3 years ago.

]]>