NationStates Jolt Archive


Why the US Should Not Intervene in Sudan

Remote Observer
17-05-2007, 16:00
The Sudan is the largest country in Africa is the first thing you need to know. Secondly only the Northern part of the Sudan is Arab, the Southern part is made up of Christian, some tribal religions and a very small percentage of Arabs. The problems currently getting the worlds attention have been going on for over 20 years now and nothing new has taken place.

Darfur is not new only the headlines are, the war in the South and on it's Western and Eastern borders has been going on for a very, very long time. Religon plays a large part but there is also tribal and ethnic differences entering into it. The South is part of Africa! The North is Arab! The oil is in the South as well as other minerals, you do the math on that one and figure out what is going on.

The war started over twenty years ago due to lots of already mentioned differences but one of the biggest being a huge oil discovery in the South by Chevron and a few other big producers.

A deal was made between the North and South at the time that the oil profits would be split 50/50 between North and South. The only profitable way they could get the oil out was via the Northern port of Port Sudan on the Red Sea, enter the the problem. Very little of the oil money made it's way South.

John Garang and his followers began the fighting the war as African against Arab. In 1986 China saw the potential oil and political vacum starting with a rising Islamic feelings in the North and a soon to be void once the US was seen as a threat in the region.

China saw its future oil needs being partially met in the Sudan and a chance to start filling the void that would be left by the US and other Western nations. The Government of China established a huge embassy in Khartoum, became involved in providing large scale aid projects, building roads etc. China was not seen as a threat due to the growing Islamic government and no threat to the Government of the Sudan.

When the Mahadi and his Islamic followers took control and the US closed it's embassy (for about the third time) the Government of China began pouring in huge numbers of it's folks to again fill the void left by the Americans.

Once again the Whiz kids at DOS didn't do a very good job at reading the streets and figuring out the coming events. From 1983-1991 the rise of the Islamic movement was all over the place, the pro Western government of Namari was toppled in a bloodless coup, the Mahadi took over, started Shari law, Religious courts, banned just about everything, every terrorist group you can think of had offices and training camp in the Sudan (most right outide of Khartoum). Clinton tried to send a signal to the terrorist that he was coming after them and bombed a asprin plant killing a few Sudanese in the process and generally making us look pretty lame.

Fast forward to 2007, The Chinese are in the Sudan now in very large numbers performing projects that we started and providing support to just about every ministry in the Sudanese Government.

The US is trying to reestablish good relations with Khartoum having sent numerous delegations to Khartoum but once again we are behind the eight ball.

The African Union is made up of countries that have been present in every war or conflict in Africa. Like the UN most of what they do is purely show. There are a few good African military units there but for the most part they are corrupt, ill trained, pooly lead and in some cases as responsible for crimes against the local tribes as the waring faction in the Sudan.

It's very simple then - if we invade Sudan, we'll piss off Muslims because we're helping Christians. And if we invade Sudan, we're there for oil. And if we invade Sudan, we'll be fighting the same kind of insurgency we're fighting in Iraq. And if we invade Sudan, we'll be up to our necks in nationbuilding - which we suck at (was just reading how we fucked up China from the days of Stilwell to Dean Acheson).

Any of the reasons that are popular now for not being in Iraq apply just as much for not being in Sudan. Period.
SaintB
17-05-2007, 16:06
Ahmen brotha! Can I get a hallelujah up in here? [/evangelist]


That means I agree


There are also the Chinese to take into consideration. They are not too fond of us as is, if we start sticking our nose into Sudan (wich they consider thier business) they mightnot be too happy.
Remote Observer
17-05-2007, 16:15
It makes me wonder why SOME people who are so ardently against the war in Iraq are ALL ABOUT immediately going into the Sudan...
Remote Observer
17-05-2007, 16:39
And I thought NSers *cared* about the people in Darfur...

*sniffle*
The Black Forrest
17-05-2007, 17:51
If you are going to be a shrub follower at least talk like one.

All that could have been shortened down to:

"Stay the course"
Delator
17-05-2007, 17:52
I agree for the most part.

We should be attempting to get China to use it's influence...the whole situation would improve if China would get off of it's ass.

But U.S. military intervention at this point would be counterproductive, unless as part of a sanctioned, multi-national UN force.
Call to power
17-05-2007, 17:56
silly China getting into quagmires :p
The Parkus Empire
17-05-2007, 17:57
Any of the reasons that are popular now for not being in Iraq apply just as much for not being in Sudan. Period.

Right. And to add to that, Bush is already fighting in two nations he can't seem to handle, he certainly couldn't do a third.
Master of Poop
17-05-2007, 17:59
It's very simple then - if we invade Sudan, we'll piss off Muslims because we're helping Christians.
Actually I don't think that's true. I was under the impression that there's been peace in the christian and animist south since 2005, and that the only fighting we see now is in Darfur, which is muslim. The current problem doesn't really have anything to do with religion as they're both muslim, it's an internal ethnic conflict.
The Black Forrest
17-05-2007, 18:06
I agree for the most part.

We should be attempting to get China to use it's influence...the whole situation would improve if China would get off of it's ass.

But U.S. military intervention at this point would be counterproductive, unless as part of a sanctioned, multi-national UN force.

Actually I heard a gal (she works in Sudan) on the radio talking about that. She said if we took out their tiny air force and blockaded their port, it would force change.
South Lorenya
17-05-2007, 18:17
...that, and both undeployed US soldiers are in their nineties.
Gravlen
17-05-2007, 19:02
Do you mean intervene/invade unilaterally?
Delator
17-05-2007, 19:26
Actually I heard a gal (she works in Sudan) on the radio talking about that. She said if we took out their tiny air force and blockaded their port, it would force change.

I'm sure China would love that....what with their oil interests in the country.

Again...counterproductive unless sanctioned by the UN.
Khermi
17-05-2007, 19:38
I generally agree, but only because I don't think we need to be getting into anyones business. Let Sudan deal with it's own problems. It's high time we deal with our own problems here at home before we presume to deal with others abroad.