Why dose everybody keep mentioning militaries that aren't capable even when compared to their neighbors? Kenya, Ghana and Tanzania shouldn't be on that list and nobody seems to want to mention Libya (much more capable than three mentioned above). And it's not like Africa has some of the best trained militaries around to be honest. The state of African armed forces are , in general, very poor. But then again they'd be going against Zimbabwe.
Invade Zimbabwe call
- Thread starter riksavage
- Start date
I think it would be really interesting what is left of the excellent Rhodesian forces which operated very successfull in the past.
I could imagine that many of them left military or left the country for the money than can get for mercenary work all around the globe.
Unfortenately many books about Rhodesian forces are not that cheap and not easy to get.
Anybody has further infos?
I could imagine that many of them left military or left the country for the money than can get for mercenary work all around the globe.
Unfortenately many books about Rhodesian forces are not that cheap and not easy to get.
Anybody has further infos?
Why should'nt those nations militaries be on a list of African nations that have good military history and traditions? Please explain that to me?
I think to escape any retribution at the hands of ZANU-PF, most former Rhodesian military personell - especially ex-Scouts and SAS went south and found new careers in the old SADF. I also know peronaly quite a few Rhodesian Air Force who went on to serve in the RAF due dual-citizenship.
To be honest with you, I'm quite ignorant about non-Arab African militaries which probably led to my statement. I should (and will) read more about them. But do you think those three militaries are well trained enough to fight assymetric warfare and big enough to have those countries give a meaningful amount of troops to the peace-keeping force? If so then I take back what I said. Meanwhile I will try to educate my self more about Africa's armed forces.
Full marks for the positive response.
In regards to Ghana, I beleive its Army already is one of the most committed and consistent contributors to UN peackeeping - certainly in Africa.
According to my ever faithful Jane's World Armies, her 2005 obligations alone included:
766 troops for UNAMSIL in Sierra Leone,
650 troops for UNIFIL in the Lebanon,
483 troops for MONUC in the DRC,
14 troops for UNMEE in Ethopia and Eritria,
17 troops for MINURSO in Western Sahara,
867 troops for UNMIL in Liberia,
2 troops for ONUB in Burundi,
409 troops for ONUCI in the Cote d'Ivoire.
3,208 troops in all committed to UN Peacekeeping roles.
Not bad for a nation with only a 6,000 strong Army.
Of course, for an operation as that predicted for Zimbabwe or that now planned for Sudan; Ghana and other African nations would need the assistance of a major power. But for the most part, African nations's ability to operate effectively and their experience at peacekeeping should not be doubted in my opinion.
Tanzania, true, but that's mostly due to the fact that they pretty much stopped funding their military. The defence budget amounts to somewhere around 0.1-0.2% GDP nowadays, and their equipment reflects that. And they don't really need an effective military either - other than for anti-smuggler/anti-piracy operations, they don't have any real mission as currently all neighbors are "friendly". They have definitely proven before though (against Idi Amin) that in case of war, however, they can rapidly increase funding, scale up their forces and beat back supposedly superior enemies. Both on the ground and in the air.
Kenya, however, has a rather modern, well-funded military really. For African standards anyway, and yes, i'm including Algeria, Lybia and Egypt in that. They might lack a bit in punch (especially regarding the airforce with its few remaining F-5E), but their training iirc is supported by US and European cooperation programs.
Kenya currently provides in major operations:
UNAMSIL (Sierra Leone) - 11 military observers, 79 staff officers, one infantry battalion (996 men)
other UN operations - 31 military observers, 15 staff officers, 57 police
recently withdrawn:
UNMEE (Ethiopia/Eritrea border) - 13 staff officers, one infantry battalion (603 men)
Kenya actually hosts peace-keeping seminars and training for other nations.
edit: The official UN peacekeeping operations site can be found here. Includes a list of troop contributions (updated regularly) for all missions, countries, contributors etc, under Facts & Figures / Troop Contributors.
Last edited:
I admit I don't know much about African forces but do you mean to compare (and I might come off as being a little arogant saying this) Kenya's armed forces to the strongest Arab/African military? Maybe in training they are equal to or better than Egypt. IMO they don't even compare to Algeria in terms of being modern.
Well, it's sorta along the lines that you have:
- a "first tier" of well-trained, well-equipped militaries (Egypt, South Africa, Algeria, maybe Lybia)
- a "second tier" that gets outside help and pretty much has no indigenous defence industry (Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Morocco, maybe Angola and a few others)
- also a "third tier" that while keeping semi-modern forces that "could be better" (Djibouti, Gabon, Sudan, Mauretania, Madagascar, Uganda)
- and then there's the vast rest, 20-30 other African nations.
In that context, Kenya is relatively strong
Sure, Egypt probably has the strongest force throughout Africa, even including South Africa. But, if you look at it in an African context, Egypt pretty much has zero involvement. Except when it comes to water as a resource that they want. Lybia and Algeria, in contrast, are far more involved in "African Matters".
Its not the invasion that is the problem, If South Africa had enough incentive and support from the western countrys we could probably walk over Zimbabwe in a month or two. The problem comes with the continued occupation of the country and the re-building. Part of a invasion is destroying Infrastructure, SA is not rich enough to sustain itself and re-build Zim
Either I or someone else already mentioned that problem.
Since the Treaty of Westphalia, invading a sovereign state without a good reason is internationally looked down upon, i.e. Iraq. Despite Saddam being a ruthless dictator that committed hundreds of atrocities, the territorial integrity of his country was still relatively respected up until 2003. I doubt the UN could come to agreement to invade, but peacekeepers and economic sactions are possible.
There is a very fundamental moral question that need to be addressed here. Do we have the right to perform humanitarian intervention if other countries aren't acting up to our standards, given the concept of sovereignty. If so, who gets to judge what is the standard or not, given the lack of consensus between nations.
There is a very fundamental moral question that need to be addressed here. Do we have the right to perform humanitarian intervention if other countries aren't acting up to our standards, given the concept of sovereignty. If so, who gets to judge what is the standard or not, given the lack of consensus between nations.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #73
According to the UK Guardian paper the South African government is circulating a document amongst diplomats ahead of a regional summit this week blaming Britain for the deepening crisis in Zimbabwe by accusing them of leading a campaign to "strangle" the beleaguered African state's economy and saying it has a "death wish" against a negotiated settlement that might leave Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF in power. Thabo Mbeki plans to paint an optimistic picture of his efforts to broker an agreement between Mugabe and the Zimbabwean opposition.
Very sad indeed, the ANC still refusing to condemn a cruel despot just because he’s one of the African revolutionary ‘brothers’ who spearheaded the end of white majority rule. Other African leaders (including Mandela) have been open and vocal in their condemnation of RB’s leadership, but not Mbeki, he just refuses to criticize the man.
Without SA logisitcal support military intervention remains unlikely.
Very sad indeed, the ANC still refusing to condemn a cruel despot just because he’s one of the African revolutionary ‘brothers’ who spearheaded the end of white majority rule. Other African leaders (including Mandela) have been open and vocal in their condemnation of RB’s leadership, but not Mbeki, he just refuses to criticize the man.
Without SA logisitcal support military intervention remains unlikely.
contedicavour
New Member
First of all international pressure should force new elections in Zimbabwe with an international armed (though strictly African) presence at all polling stations. Citizens who fled to South Africa should be allowed to vote.
The role of the UK and of the West in general would be to promise huge loads of money and emergency supplies to a non-Mugabe government. Plus, inevitably, funding for a South African-led armed election monitoring force.
This way democracy would be able to function and Mugabe would be wiped out, may be even by his own ruling ZANU party who wouldn't want to be marginalized.
Next, some neighboring countries' forces should remain for some time to make sure Mugabe cronies in the police and armed forces don't just replace a Mugabe dictatorship with another one.
Only South Africa today would have the credibility to run this sort of operation without being accused of neo-colonialism. Also, China would have a key role in not opposing the request of a monitored election by African armed forces. Currently China is propping up the regime with its investment and easy credit.
cheers
The role of the UK and of the West in general would be to promise huge loads of money and emergency supplies to a non-Mugabe government. Plus, inevitably, funding for a South African-led armed election monitoring force.
This way democracy would be able to function and Mugabe would be wiped out, may be even by his own ruling ZANU party who wouldn't want to be marginalized.
Next, some neighboring countries' forces should remain for some time to make sure Mugabe cronies in the police and armed forces don't just replace a Mugabe dictatorship with another one.
Only South Africa today would have the credibility to run this sort of operation without being accused of neo-colonialism. Also, China would have a key role in not opposing the request of a monitored election by African armed forces. Currently China is propping up the regime with its investment and easy credit.
cheers
Sorry sgt Banes, must have missed that one. Anyway,
Unfortunate but true. However there is a bit of hope since the government has recently revised an idea to build refugee camps along our border with Zim, which would force them to acknowledge that there is a problem since you don’t exactly build refugee camps on borders for fun.
contedicavour
New Member
Another idea is to support rivals to Mugabe within the ruling party ZANU-PF ... some army officers have recently been arrested by Mugabe loyalists fearing a palace coup....
cheers
cheers
Sorry guys I stand corrected. I have just heard on the news that the South African Government wont give refugee status to any Zim's coming over the border as apparently they are only crossing the border to "go shopping", and that there is no problem in Zim.
That idea is valid, the only problem is that by aiding the opposition you stand a good chance of causing the palace coup which would have a good chance of triggering a civil war, which in itself could probably be worse than the current government.
That idea is valid, the only problem is that by aiding the opposition you stand a good chance of causing the palace coup which would have a good chance of triggering a civil war, which in itself could probably be worse than the current government.
Last edited:
contedicavour
New Member
You are right, but a civil war may be the only way to force the South African government to intervene... and if they do then there's a chance the AU, the UN, etc would also intervene. Even if I hate palace coups, in this situation it may be the only solution to go back to democracy. Sanctions and an amazingly dramatic economic situation don't seem to affect Mugabe's entourage.
cheers
invade zimbambwe using south african army
this is a pure dream i am a zimbabwean if you think zimbabwe is a weak state think again .even the south african generals know what they will face. south africa is just another african state .find proper ways of addresing issues war has never solved anything .to think that usa and europe will provide aid is a dream . why would they give aid after destroying the country.who do they want to help.do not let your counrty be used whilst they are working on plans to destroy your south africa .country has similar problems as zimbabwe give your country 10years from now .
do not underestimate other countries or you will shocked.
this is a pure dream i am a zimbabwean if you think zimbabwe is a weak state think again .even the south african generals know what they will face. south africa is just another african state .find proper ways of addresing issues war has never solved anything .to think that usa and europe will provide aid is a dream . why would they give aid after destroying the country.who do they want to help.do not let your counrty be used whilst they are working on plans to destroy your south africa .country has similar problems as zimbabwe give your country 10years from now .
do not underestimate other countries or you will shocked.
contedicavour
New Member
Nobody wants to invade anyone. Folks on this thread are just looking for ways to help democracy blossom in Zimbabwe again.... and South Africa has a symbolic role to fulfill in this. The SA soldiers I was referring to would have to be peacekeepers accepted by both government and opposition parties in Zimbabwe.
cheers