PMCs and Darfur

Michael Cohen adds some nuance to my skepticism about the utility of introducing private military contractors ("mercenaries," as we used to call them) into a crisis situation like Darfur:

In Kenya, ArmorGroup guards protect UNHCR refugee camps; PAE and AYR Aviation are working with the UN and African Union in Sudan; in Liberia, Dyncorp is training that country's new military. Moreover, no one, including the contractors themselves, are advocating that Blackwater or any other private group should go into Darfur with guns blazing. I have yet to come across any serious player in the industry who is advocating a combat role for private contractors. In fact, quite the opposite.

Fair enough. I was responding to a Michael Walzer piece that I took to be making the case for "with guns blazing." Insofar as that's not what we're talking about, there may be a reasonable role for contractors to play.

Comments

The question is who's serious about doing anything serious at all, not which particular instruments of policy are decided upon. The clear answer seems to be "Nobody".

It is rich to hear people who think we should have continued to play footsie with Saddam Hussein after he launched a couple of wars of aggression that killed a million-plus people, rocketed supertankers, torched oilfields, engaged in genocide, sponsored terrorism, developed and used wmd's, etc. now pretending to be willing to do anything at all in places like Darfur.

Sudan hasn't invaded anyone, never had wmd's, and has no (zero) Chapter VII Resolutions outstanding. Moreover, it is a backwater of little import to the world economy, while Iraq sits on the fulcrum of the world economy.

Who's kidding whom? After Iraq, genocidal tyrants have a free pass to do pretty much whatever they want. It is patently absurd to expect that people who imagine Iraq's liberation to have been "illegal and unilateral" will approve of any use of American force unless Canada invades.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 12, 2008 9:27 AM

The way he situates his response still seems to indicate that Matt and he are disagreeing about two completely separate issues:

Yet, the reality of the situation in Darfur almost seems an abstraction to those who criticize even the thought of using contractors to stop the killing there. Here is Crooked Timber's response to the idea that contractors should not be sent to Darfur:

One of Walzer’s commenters sums up the view of those paragraphs eminently well, saying:'doing something is better than doing nothing' here’s an idea to engage with; no it’s not.

Really? As many as 400,000 Darfuris have been killed, often in a brutal manner; more than 2.5 million have been displaced; the UN peacekeeping effort there is badly underfunded and undermanned. Yet, apparently, the idea of sending private contractors to assist the peacekeepers is so abhorrent it's not even an idea worth engaging with. That's a level of moral obtuseness that I find difficult to fathom. Private contractors are not a panacea, but if they are able to work constructively to stop the killing in Darfur shouldn’t the notion at least be entertained? Our ultimate focus should be saving lives and ending the genocidal slaughter in Darfur. If contractors are capable of doing the job then it’s an idea that the United Nations must consider.

I thought it was obvious, though, that general discussions of sending in private armies to Darfur were only publicly controversial when they are discussions about significant military interventions -- i.e., hiring them to 'fix things' in Darfur / Sudan.

The "how dare you speak so ill of contractors" has nothing to do with that type of discussion, although yes there are disagreements among various people about the role of contracting in this kind of work.

So unless he's asserting that anyone has offered some particular argument that there is a way of reducing the violence in Darfur / Sudan by having contractors militarily intervene, it seems more of an argument about the details of how to support current (and typically weakly supported) African Union operations.

For example, de Waal again:

The African Mission in Sudan has become ineffective, partly through its own internal failings and partly for no fault of its own–because of lack of resources provided by international donors. The most egregious error was the expulsion of the non-signatories from the Ceasefire Commission in August 2006 (an act that I strenuously opposed). As time has gone by and AMIS forces have become less mobile and more confined to their posts and less able to venture out and interact with the general population and the armed movements, the perception has also arisen that they are closer to the government. Even if true, however, this cannot justify any attack on them.

It is not only wrong but extremely foolish. It will deter troop contributing countries from playing a role in UNAMID and when they do so, it will place more focus on force protection and less on working with the civilian populace and protecting them.

http://www.ssrc.org/blog/2007/10/03/in-defense-of-the-african-union/#comment-961

Posted by El Cid | March 12, 2008 9:28 AM

"After Iraq, genocidal tyrants have a free pass to do pretty much whatever they want."

Um, genocidal tyrants had free passes beforehand, unless they pissed off somebody with the power to do something about it. Remember that the US didn't get into WWII until Japan dragged us there. Also, that the US has a record around the globe of supporting mass murdering dictators after WWII, under the grounds of 'anti-communism'.

Posted by Barry | March 12, 2008 9:35 AM

There's not really that many knowledgeable people making the argument that a hypothetical U.S. intervention would make the situation better.

I mean something real, you know, something other than your typical pompous grandstanding about how you're so unfathomably noble and everyone else are tyrants' boot-lickers, why don't you make the specific argument, big man? Surely this is one of those situations where your awesome, huge, insightful knowledge of the situation on the ground would show exactly how a manly man's bold, not-held-back-by-cowardly-leftists' intervention would clear things right up, no?

After all, it's physically impossible that an intervention done for such awesomely moral purposes could in any way make life worse for the benighted victims at the other end of your generosity, so, go ahead, give us the layout -- you know, the argument which isn't simply a flimsy condemnation of your leftist and Quisling betes noires, but the positive argument which shows how things would definitely improve.

Posted by El Cid | March 12, 2008 9:40 AM

Fair enough. Well over a year ago I supported the proposal over at TNR that we push for a no-fly zone, and provide air cover for UN peacekeepers in Western Darfur. A significant factor in turning things genocidal in Darfur seems to have been the deployment from Khartoum of helicopter gunships.

I don't hold out much chance of success due to the certain opposition of Russia and China on the Security Council. With the UN blocked, the only alternative would be a Kosovo-style NATO/EU action. I would support this, but I don't think very many others would under the circumstances.

Those circumstances are principally Iraq, and Iraq. Compared to Saddam's Iraq, today's Sudan is really a minor problem. I personally feel that the 400,000-odd Darfuris massacred so far deserve justice as much as the Kurds massacred in about the same numbers, but both groups are vastly outnumbered by the other victims of Ba'athist Iraq, and we couldn't dismiss the likely prospect of it continuing to run up the score. Acting to end that regime's grip required over a decade of work at the UN and in the Persian Gulf. The results have been less than satisfactory.

I don't see any political support in the EU for funding action in Darfur, and there's certainly none in the US while we're funding Iraq and Afghanistan with little support. Mercs aren't cheap, but they're cheaper than arranging diplomatic support at the UN these days.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 12, 2008 12:33 PM

With the UN blocked, the only alternative would be a Kosovo-style NATO/EU action.

I actually believe that you think this to be some sort of description of a policy, instead of some hastily thrown analogy.

Are you under the impression that such vague analogies convey actual arguments about what would be done, or is there simply the assumption that there would somewhere be military offices upon whom this task would be dumped, and that anyone who fails to assume this is yet another hate-the-military leftist?

Or has there been some proposal in which someone has lain out the grounds upon which a "Kosovo-style NATO/EU action" (or, for that matter any preferred imaginary referent) has been argued that would likely lead to actual improvements on the ground?

Or are these once again mere details to be worked out by functionaries while the actual real people get to work on the important grandiose moralizing by chest-beating on Iraq?

Posted by El Cid | March 12, 2008 1:34 PM

[I personally feel that the 400,000-odd Darfuris massacred so far ]

I'm in a good mood today so I will give you precisely one chance to pretend that you misspoke here.

How many Darfurians have been killed by violence, and how many have died as a result of hunger, thirst and disease as a result of their displacement?

Now, macho man, how does this balance change your strategy for dealing with the conflict in Darfur? Specifically, how does a military strategy cope with the need to maintain the humanitarian aid infrastructure?

When you've dealt with that, you need to tackle the problem of the camps themselves, and the violence that takes place within them between rival splinter guerilla movements.

El Cid is 100% right here; you're pretending to have a plan and you don't.

Posted by dsquared | March 12, 2008 2:31 PM

First, on the numbers, all I know is what I read. Darfur Watch says about 400,000 (cited in El Cid's post above). Other "experts" put the number closer to 200,000. The Sundanese government says 9,000. Take your pick, the number's not critical to the point here.

Of course there is no "plan", including the idea under discussion of creating one using PMC's. For there to be a plan, there would first have to be general agreement on creating one, which does not and in all probability will not exist. I spent a fair amount of time corresponding about the particulars of how a no-fly zone could relieve some of the pressure, and air support could make more effective the work in the camps and by peacekeepers, but it's all completely speculative unless first there's the political will to actually do anything at all. There isn't, and that was my original point. Does someone here have a Secret Plan we should know about? I haven't seen one.

People who are unaware of what actually went into the decisions-- many of them, over a period of some years-- about intervening in Iraq, are often obnoxiously sanctimonious about the difficulties, and presumptuous about the motives of anyone who supported the idea. So far, many of the same folks seem to be equally in the dark about the factors under consideration in relation to Darfur. This doesn't seem to prevent them from taking a generally appalling self-righteous tone, and holding a grudge when the favor is returned. Doesn't do much for the exchange of ideas, at least on the occasions someone actually comes up with some.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 12, 2008 5:19 PM

Powell: "First, on the numbers, all I know is what I read."

This is the guy who in a thread yesterday stated that anybody who hadn't been to Iraq, didn't know any Iraqis, and who only read anti-war articles, could be easily discounted.

Fine - you're discounted on Darfur.

"the number's not critical to the point here."

Of course it is. If they only killed five people so far, who could justify a military intervention? 400,000 is entirely a bigger number than 9,000. Just like Iraq, where you believe "only" some couple score thousand have died, whereas the real numbers of the best studies indicate a million, with the US directly responsible for around 300,000 of them.

Ah, but that's "anti-war", so naturally you discount those studies since they don't agree with your ketamine addiction hallucinatory perception of the situation in Iraq.

As for "appalling self-righteous tones", you've been the master of that here - particularly since you've almost never cited ANYTHING other than your bland assertions about how things are in Iraq.

So your opinions on Darfur can be "easily discounted".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 13, 2008 12:09 AM

Hack--
One of the many "things" I've cited is the recent UN/WHO study on Iraqi casualties, widely regarded as by far the most accurate count by objective peer review. The absurd Johns Hopkins study you rely on was blasted by peer review, and described by its own authors as timed for release in such a way as to affect the US elections. Great science.

On Darfur, what I know is what I read, and what I've read has convinced me that the numbers are irrelevant because no one is going to do anything but whine about this problem no matter what they are. Some of the loudest whiners are people who were prepared to accept much worse from Iraq.

I don't think, and didn't say, that "anyone who hasn't been to Iraq" could be discounted. I said that YOU can easily be discounted because the stuff you cite is mostly obvious propaganda and/or wacky personal opinion, and your principal point seems to be that everyone who doesn't, like you, think that US policy is a fiendish plot by Jews and other malefactors is a "moron".

Responding to the appalling self-righteousness of posters who imagine that the entire Iraq problem was, and is, a simple black-and-white matter of "Bush lies" by pointing out inconvenient facts may be difficult for those who imagine themselves fearless truth-tellers. Tough.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 13, 2008 3:24 AM

[the number's not critical to the point here]

What is critical to the point here, and I gave you your chance and you didn't take it, is the proportion of deaths caused by violence relative to the proportion caused by displacement, because these two problems require very different kinds of solutions.

[Does someone here have a Secret Plan we should know about? I haven't seen one]

and nevertheless you appear to have assumed that the correct solution requires military intervention. The rest of your post seems to me to be two parts back-pedalling to three parts gums-flapping - it's very clear that you in fact don't have any idea what you're talking about, and your best bet is to hope that we all forget that your first reaction was to (meaninglessly) declare your support for a "Kosovo-style NATO/EU action".

I think we're all more likely to forget that, by the way, if you give up with the silly personal insults and don't try to start an argument which you are doomed to lose over the Johns Hopkins study. At the moment, you appear to be strafing your own credibility.

Posted by dsquared | March 13, 2008 6:41 AM

d-squared--
In the interest of clarity, I do NOT, and never claimed to, have a "plan" for Darfur. It's clearly complicated and ugly, and would require a complex, expensive, and widely supported effort including aid workers, UN peacekeepers, and, in my view, some kind of military support to fundamentally alter the situation--after all, whatever the problems in the camps, people are there because they were driven out of their homes.

In terms of my point, I still don't see how it makes a bit of difference exactly how many people have been killed so far or who did it, and how, because NO ONE IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING, whatever the figures. If by some remote lucky chance anyone does, it will surely be done outside the auspices of the Security Council, which you can call something other than "Kosovo-style NATO/EU action" if you want to.

I'm perfectly willing to defer to you or anyone else who has the knowledge and experience with the particulars to delineate a practical plan for relieving the suffering in Darfur, and will most likely support it to the best of my ability. I just don't see how it actually gets done, and I haven't seen anything you or anyone else here has written that explains that.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 13, 2008 11:15 AM

Powell, you're a classic case of "projection".

Everything you do you accuse your opponents of doing.

It's pathetically obvious to anyone who reads your nonsense.

Which makes you pathetically obvious.

You keep citing the UN study as the most widely regarded as accurate. That's pure bullshit. You have absolutely zero evidence to back that statement up. The Lancet study was vetted forwards and backwards and nobody has managed to seriously dent it. The other recent poll taken is also considered valid, and its numbers approximate the Lancet study.

The HUGE hole in the UN study is that it was conducted by the Iraqi government and the Lancet study author points out that not many Iraqis would be willing to answer the questions about family casualties because it would subject them to suspicion of being part of the insurgency or a militia group.

But you ignore all that and just blandly assert that the UN study is the only valid study.

It's pure bullshit.

"I don't think, and didn't say, that "anyone who hasn't been to Iraq" could be discounted."

That's exactly what you did say. You didn't limit it to me in any sense. And now you're backtracking because the exact same sentence can be applied to you.

Again, you're pathetic. You don't know how to debate. You simply make blind assertions backed up by nothing. Most of my posts either have links to supporting evidence, or at the very least anyone can do a Google and find the supporting evidence on page one of the results. You have no such capability.

Again, pathetic.

And finally, nobody believes your bullshit except the right wing nut crowd: Fred, Al, Ford, SLC, etc.

Again, pathetic.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 14, 2008 2:47 AM

I am confident that as long as I have the disapproval of RSH, I'm on the right track. Basing long, boring rants on discredited polling data and his own mind-reading, behaving like a boorish adolescent--who could wish for a more hapless opponent? Keep it up, Rich. You really bring the class.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 14, 2008 6:25 AM