You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Africa Horn
Annan: U.S. Must Play Major Role in Sudan
2006-02-10
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Thursday he will ask President Bush for the United States to play a major role in a peacekeeping force in Sudan's Darfur region.
No, but thank's for asking
"We'll be washing our hair - for the next few years"
"Sure Kofi, we have a couple companies of Green Berets, they'll be helping the people of Darfur. Oh. That's not what you had in mind ..."
Annan said Darfur's plight is too severe for rich nations, including the United States, to simply fund the mission while third world nations contribute troops - a practice that is largely the norm for U.N. peacekeeping missions around the world. "It is not going to be easy for the big and powerful countries with armies to delegate it to third world countries," Annan told reporters. "They will have to play a part if we are going to stop the carnage that we see in Darfur." Annan said he planned to raise the issue with Bush during a White House meeting Monday. The United States currently pays about a quarter of the U.N. peacekeeping budget, which topped $5 billion in 2005, but provides a very small percentage of troops or police.

Annan said the Darfur mission will need a "completely different force." That means highly trained troops with solid logistical support, backed by air power, with the ability to move quickly.
He forgot to add the most important part, willingness to pull the trigger
My plan for the Green Berets advances ...
On Thursday, the U.N. Security Council authorized planning for the United Nations to take over peacekeeping duties in Darfur from the African Union, whose 7,000 troops have been hampered by all the usual complaints we've seen over the past fifty years shoddy equipment, poor training and lack of funds. The African Union troops have made a difference where they are stationed, but have been unable to bring lasting peace to Darfur, where an estimated 180,000 people have died in violence since 2003. The United States and several other nations have said genocide occurred in Sudan.

The U.N. mission must send a message to those responsible for the violence "that we have a force that is capable to respond, a force that is everywhere and a force that will be there on time to prevent them from intimidating and killing the innocent civilians," Annan said.
Killing them first would do the trick, but Kofi won't go there.
The United States has been reluctant to contribute troops since 18 U.S. soldiers were killed in clashes with gunmen in 1993 during the peacekeeping mission in Somalia. U.S. Mission spokesman Richard Grenell would not comment on whether the United States planned to contribute troops.
Considering how well UN C4 worked last time, I wouldn't be rushing to say yes.
We can do it, sure, but we have to be in charge. No blue berets, only green ones.
Posted by:

#37  Kofi doesn't understand that only Democrat presidents make Americans wear blue helmets. Call back in 10 or 20 years.
Posted by: RWV   2006-02-10 21:30  

#36  I think that UN written history in 10 years is unlikely and will be the least of our worries.
Posted by: SR-71   2006-02-10 21:04  

#35  Why does the old adage "The last one who touches it, owns it." come to mind?

No Baby Blue helmets. No Mission Creep. No relying upon PakiWaki armor. No Gutless Turds in the Chain of Command. No thanks.
Posted by: .com   2006-02-10 20:02  

#34  #17 Deacon Blues has nailed it.

The U.S. is being set up by Kofi in his last days. And we're gonna bend over and take it in the collective shorts in the history books 10 years down the road.
Posted by: Mizzou Mafia   2006-02-10 18:55  

#33  The US must... Or else what? How about "No."
Posted by: SR-71   2006-02-10 18:29  

#32  U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Thursday he will ask President Bush for the United States to play a major role in a peacekeeping force in Sudan's Darfur region.

One question for Goo-fi: Has what occurred in Sudan genocide or not? A yes or no answer would suffice.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2006-02-10 15:48  

#31  Robert Crawford, I think you just insulted the mob with that comment in #18.
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2006-02-10 15:40  

#30  I saw Christopher Hitchens last night in a "debate." One of his final statements was to wonder what the audience thought about us going into Sudan. Would they say it was wrong, based on their belief that invading Iraq was wrong? Well, it doesn't matter anymore, he said. It's too late anyway. They've already all been killed.
Posted by: growler   2006-02-10 15:18  

#29  I can't get over the image of Kofi being the servant-eunuch of a large harem of bored and irascible women with PMS.

Sheesh, moose, you of all people can do better. That's only third-circle-of-hell stuff, Kofi's got reservations in the seventh circle at least.

As to Kofi and Mugabe, both have run their prospective domains totally to he||, handed over the reins to any person of color regardless of qualifications, proven themselves to be utterly ineffectual and finally must beg those with actual skill to come in and clean up their horrid mess.

[Homer Simpson] It works on so many different levels! [/HS]
Posted by: Zenster   2006-02-10 15:15  

#28  I can't get over the image of Kofi being the servant-eunuch of a large harem of bored and irascible women with PMS.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-02-10 14:59  

#27  No freeking way.
Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom   2006-02-10 14:33  

#26  Oh, and Kofi, that little matter of UN reform?

Might we start there first?
Posted by: Captain America   2006-02-10 14:29  

#25  That's an insult to ZimBob!
Posted by: Ernest Brown   2006-02-10 14:25  

#24  China already had 10 or 20 thousand troops protecting their oil interests. Sound like they are on the ground with troops to boot. Shouldn't be hard to deploy them.
Posted by: 3dc   2006-02-10 14:20  

#23  Annan said the Darfur mission will need a "completely different force." That means highly trained troops with solid logistical support, backed by air power, with the ability to move quickly. Well, there are three other permanent members of the security council that aren't doing anything right now. Ask France, China, and the Russian Federation to step up to the plate. If they can't or wont provide the forces necesary for the Dafur mission then maybe they should relinguish their seats in favor of a country that can and will.
Posted by: GK   2006-02-10 14:04  

#22  #9 Where is chinese Gordon when you really need him??? (The more things change, the more they stay the same.)

Actually, Gordon died at Khartoum. What they really need is Kitchener.
Posted by: Ebbavitle Sholunter6295   2006-02-10 13:12  

#21  "Rich nations"? What does money have to do with it? Typical anti-capitalist drivel from Kofi.

If we go in, we should only go in our way-with freedom to shoot genocide-committing janjaweed. But we won't be free to do it our way under the UN. It will forbid us from shooting janjaweed because 1) they're Muslim and 2) they're Arab. If we did, he would be spouting off about American racism and Islamophobia on CNN to stir up more hatred.

"The U.N. mission must send a message to those responsible for the violence 'that we have a force that is capable to respond, a force that is everywhere and a force that will be there on time to prevent them from intimidating and killing the innocent civilians,' Annan said.

Just imagine how Desert Storm might have had a different history had he been willing to say the same about the "killing of innocents" in Iraq before the war.
Posted by: Jules   2006-02-10 13:12  

#20  #11 [Kofi] has run the UN just like Mugabe runs Zimbabwe ...

Ouch, that has to leave a mark.

I dunno, he might take it as a compliment.
Posted by: Unart Elmese9236   2006-02-10 13:10  

#19  I think Deacon Blue has a point. If Kofi was realy serious about genocide in Darfu it would have ended two years ago. Kofi just isn't willing to pay the price: Lots of dead Sudanese Gov't supported Muslims.
Posted by: Mark Z   2006-02-10 12:46  

#18  The UN? Isn't that a mob front?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-02-10 12:38  

#17  This really may be a shrewed move on Kofi's part. After years of neglect by the UN he asks for US intervention in Sudan. When the US says, "Sorry, but we are busy elswhere" he can the claim the US stood by and did nothing while thousands of people were murdered while ignoring the fact we have been supportive of UN intervention and calling it genocide for some time now. Just another way to show how evil the US really is.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-02-10 11:50  

#16  LH, it would be even more desirable for Bolton to tell Kofi that the Monday meeting with Bush is cancelled for lack of interest.
Posted by: Darrell   2006-02-10 11:44  

#15  The UN doesn't want to go - there aren't any underage girls left!
Posted by: CrazyFool   2006-02-10 11:43  

#14  I think UNSC support is precisely what Kofi has in mind.

References to ICS immunity are spot on though. That would probably be a deal breaker to direct US participation on the ground.

It would be desirable to have French-German-Spanish troops on the ground, with US logistics support.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-02-10 11:37  

#13  Desperate times call for desperate measures. Send Kojo.
Posted by: Matt   2006-02-10 11:37  

#12  Sure. Get Kofi to get France-Germany-Spain to either send the troops there, or to Iraq. Enough so that we can take 50,000 out of Irag and put less than that in the Sudan. That's the only way it could be a win for us. We get some sodiers home. They deserve it.
Posted by: plainslow   2006-02-10 11:22  

#11  [Kofi] has run the UN just like Mugabe runs Zimbabwe ...

Ouch, that has to leave a mark.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-02-10 11:12  

#10  While Sudan is a lesser nexus in the web of terrorist activity, we really need to focus on the major players right now. Kofi (May Bees Sting His Knees) has been nothing if not obstructive in American efforts to quell the rising threat of Islamist terrorism. For us to be drawn off of the central pivot point in the Middle East would do ZERO good.

Then again, that may Kofi's exact intention. This scumbag has run the UN just like Mugabe runs Zimbabwe, as his own personal fiefdom, nepotism and all. Protestations aside, Kofi has essentially been batting for the opposing team from day one. The UN's coddling of Iran is a shining example of this. Intentionally or not, his suggestion that we become involved in Sudan counts as nothing more than an attempt to divert us from the single most important task at hand. For that reason, Kofi can go p!ss up a rope.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-02-10 11:01  

#9  Where is chinese Gordon when you really need him??? (The more things change, the more they stay the same.)

Personally speaking, a U.s. peacekeeping force would have more luck on the PLANET OF THE APES....
Posted by: borgboy   2006-02-10 10:36  

#8  Only if we go in without a stupid UN banner over our heads. Other than that, Fuck you Kofi.
Posted by: mmurray821   2006-02-10 10:28  

#7  The Patriots will draft Kofi this year; I tell you, this guy can punt!
Posted by: Raj   2006-02-10 10:18  

#6  "Of course not GENOCIDE! But can you help these people from being wiped out of existance!"
Posted by: Hupons Sholumble5254   2006-02-10 10:17  

#5  From Crawford TX and the southwest wing: Huh er, huh Kofi er I thought you wanted us OUT? Is it OUT or in or out and in, back er what is it you want Kofi? Er huh, "ability to move quickly" is THAT what the UN needs? Darfur? Isn't that Africa? They don't like us there Kofi, you know that don't you? We're kinda (no pun intended) tied up at the moment Kofi, Care for some central Texas Koffee Kofi? I'm headed out back to cut some brush, you do brush?
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-02-10 10:00  

#4  And that does include a written preemption of the ICS from the Security Council as well : no Americans can be refered to the ICS for any actions taken while in the Sudan.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2006-02-10 10:00  

#3  No way in Hell, unless we get carte blanche to operate we want with the Security Council's blessing in writing. Otherwise, F*U Kofi.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2006-02-10 09:58  

#2  Has Sudan been referred to the Security Council?
Posted by: eLarson   2006-02-10 09:55  

#1  no no no no, after Iraq and the bitching by kofi and co about meddling in other peoples affairs lets just do nothing - so to him sudan is a legitimate cause yet saddams iraq was not????? wtf the blokes a mental case who needs his head examining!!! just stunning really the gaull of it.
Posted by: ShepUK   2006-02-10 09:39  

00:00