Invade Zimbabwe call

contedicavour

New Member
I'm actually astonished that Nigeria doesn't invest more in its military given its oil related wealth, its growing economy, and the considerable importance the armed forces have always had since independence.
The air force needs to do something to replace MIG21s and Jaguars. The navy needs to buy new OPVs instead on relying on former USCG cutters from WW2. The frigate Aradu, the corvette and the 3 remaining FPB57 (Lurssen) FACs need major refurbishments. There's a need for OPVs to patrol the oil rigs offshore, and for LSTs to ferry around the Nigerian peacekeepers. I'm less of an expert regarding the army, so I'll leave this to others to comment.

cheers
 

dioditto

New Member
Mod edit:

This adds what to the discussion?

You've only just returned from your ban, I'd suggest you stick to the topic, seeing as though you obviously want to be here...

Regards

AD
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dioditto

New Member
Mod edit:

Do you actually want to discuss Defence topics?

I'd suggest you start.

There won't be anymore warnings.

AD
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stryker001

Banned Member
Au

We may have a contingency plan, but do we have the forces to do it given our exploits in Afghanistan and Iraq? I think not.

This is an African problem, thus why can't Africa sort it out? Instead of us laying ourself open to accusations of colonialism.
Thats the problem the west installed Mugabe and the AU consider if any action is taken it's up to the west. Sort of you put him there, you get rid of him.

I think a political assassination and coup (I am sure it has been discussed) would be a good start then bring in NATO and the UN. There are substantial ex Zimbabwean residents in South Africa to cross the boarder and seize ground for gunships and other air assets to be brought in, ex Russian stuff. He who controls the air controls Rhodesia.

An insurgency that last 12 months would bring serious fiscal pressure on the Government. Its one thing to shoot unarmed civilians, its another to come up against a well resourced merc force.

At election time would be a perfect time to launch an invasion and liberation of Zimbabwe.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
He who controls the air controls Rhodesia.
That didn't work when Zimbabwe was still named Rhodesia... ;)

Another problem is finances.
Who is going to pay for the mercs?
Every european government who is cuaght in paying for mercs to fight in Africa in a large scale is going to pay heavily for it on the political homefront.
 

Stryker001

Banned Member
re: the cash, set up a food program and steal the cash from the food program (it would be tax deductible) various private donations( it not illegal as nobody official knows the food programs a front), offer contract's for mining etc to various corporations.Or like a lot of other insurgencies it can be funded via narcotics.

Re: un-popular on the homefront, can't be any more up-popular than Iraq.

They would rush a bulk of their forces to the boarder and part of the merc force would be dropped in behind them and cut them off, while an advance in country occurs. Re-supplying the merc force is the key to success.

It creates a problem because they have to control the population as well as countering the insurgency once the world spreads (it would take awhile) that an invasion has occurred anarchy will be propagated.

Its more popular to use merc's than foreign forces taking casualties once the major fighting is done NATO and the UN can come for peackeeping and to run free elections.

They would have to ship a pallet of Panadol because Robert would have one hell of a headache.

The real problem would be being locked up by the South Africans as you gather troops and bring equipment in, then being deported to Zimbabwe.

A lot of 'seed money' would be required to bribe them start with high-ranking police, defense, politicians probably all the way to Mbeki doorstep.
 
Last edited:

Stryker001

Banned Member
?

First stop Moscow for equipment and some ex Spetsnaz troops, pilots, ground crew etc, and then off to South Africa by ship, while others contract some Yanks (mainly Marines, Rangers), Aussies and British (elements of ex SAS) and some ex-Legionnaires (Africans) who fly into South Africa.

The African legionnaires (sleeper cell) fly straight to Harare to report back intelligence probably 3 months in advance until they are reclassified as an assassination squad. (yep they get a bonus $)

Biggest hassle is getting some elements of the air power to South Africa, probably lease it (you break it you buy it), plus spare parts to keep it all operational.

Buy the other planes in South Africa for transport of troops; all other equipment can be sources in South Africa. As can fuel and food and medical supplies.

The air power cannot be armed until its crosses over into Zimbabwe that is why an air defense detachment is required to secure an area for this to take place without any interference.

The bulk of the ground force would be made up of Africans; after all, it is their fight. The Government to be ousted will know a force is coming as spies will report it to them. So disinformation is required as to where and when.

All enemy combatants whom don’t throw down their guns and go to their barracks will be hunted down and shot at the end of the conflict and so will their families, after all it is Africa. Before the peacekeepers arrive.

Of course, it is a lot more complex than these posts. However nothing is impossible.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Why go via South Africa? Mozambique has a longer & more porous border. Shona live both sides of the border - a former girlfriend of mine called her grandmother "Portuguese" because she was from Mozambique, but she was Shona, just like the rest of her relatives. Plenty of other cross-border families. Could be useful.
 

Stryker001

Banned Member
?

Yeah come from both angles.

That is one of Zimbabwe main protections not being near a coast.

If Mugabe was smart because he has stuffed his own Country and economy, you think he would invade one of his neighbors to gain instant wealth, however I do not think they could sustain combat.

That is one reason as to why he is tolerated, he is happy to stay within his own boarder and terrorize his own people.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
... If Mugabe was smart because he has stuffed his own Country and economy, you think he would invade one of his neighbors to gain instant wealth, however I do not think they could sustain combat.
....
He has intervened in a war, much to the profit of army officers & his cronies: Democratice Republic of Congo.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
He has intervened in a war, much to the profit of army officers & his cronies: Democratice Republic of Congo.
Ah, but there are barely any countries in the region who haven't done that... ermm... Malawi i think. And maybe Mozambique. Anyone else has been in there at some point or another, or has provided staging points for another party to go in there. Could get interesting to make a list at some point...
 

McTaff

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Use of mercs

There is a big problem with bringing in the UN after a mercenary army has gone through the place.

Firstly, whoever paid for the mercs to come in would not be able to keep that a secret.

Secondly, once that fact is known, the UN will ask why they should intervene when that country has clearly paid for what amounts to an invasion by private army, or at best a "civil" war.

Thirdly, once the mercs are there, they require to be paid continuously until they leave. The UN is not always known for their speedy intervention.

-

So imagine the situation when, say, Mozambique professes only passing knowledge that a large armed force assembled in their territory, and then enters Zimbabwe? Following on, that the troops were paid for by (for arguments sake) the UK?

What, if any, reason do they have for entering the country on peaceful terms with this invading hostile force?
Why would they depose Mugabe, or prevent him from retaking power (which was unlawfully wrested from him in the first place?).
Why is it their responsibility to intervene, and who exactly are they interveneing on behalf of - Mugabe or these invaders?
They'd stymie their argument by asking how do they dissociate themselves from the mercenaries and convince the local populace that they are are in fact there to help? ... and they'd start the ever so slow process of deliberation over that and many more subjects.

-

Unfortunately, the UN is not the quickest of organisations, but the only way to kick Mugabe out is to gather an overwhelming majority of nations that will put their foot down and say 'enough is enough'. To do that, you'd need stacks of evidence, and you'd have to melt your way through the countless decades worth of ear wax that most representatives have built up.

I have little faith in the UN (the subject of another discourse for another time), but the crux of the issue is that unless it is a purely private venture (i.e. not one perpetrated by a nation), then it will have to start and end with the UN.

Going in there half-cocked is only going to begin a third political debacle about who shouldn't have gone into where for whatever reason.
 
Last edited:

Stryker001

Banned Member
Zimbabwe

A lot of sense in what you fellows have said.

Mugabe would be able to gain assistance from his own mercs in the form of narco-terrorists; a large percentage of methamphetamine arriving in South Africa comes via Zimbabwe. Some if the profits fund Jihad in Africa.

They will have to send the UN in to provide food aid and to run free elections, the UN can pay the merc forces to provide security and CPP for it staff.


If you go in for private interest, then the humanitarian issues are not a priority and UN staff would not gain visas to monitor elections. Zimbabwe are suspend from the Commonwealth,so it none of their business.



Also China has financial interests in Zimbabwe so they could send troops to secure their economic interest, so one would have to consult the Chinese that their interests would be protect by the new Government.

Zimbabwe is the perfect location for a nuclear waste holding facility, and the Chinese know this.
 

chakos

New Member
This is beginning to sound like something out of Blood Diamond. Send in the white mercenaries and 'snuff everything that moves'. The problem with this (although this isnt a bad idea) is that it would empower and embolden good old Bob like you wouldnt believe. Dont forget he is still worshiped by large segments of his country as the person who freed them from white rule and he uses the fear of white colonial intervention to keep what support he does have. What im reading here will justify him and rally the country behind him because no matter how good the intentions are it would be (non-African) people here would be discussing this topic if the country in question was Rwanda or Somalia (and in both the situation in Zimbabwe would be an improvement over what they currently have)?? :confused:
 

chakos

New Member
For some reason the middle bit of my last post dissapeared into the ether. basically what i was saying was that if it wasnt for the treatment of the white farmers noone would be talking about this. he would be just another black leader treating his black subjects badly. Africa is full of these situations.. but throw in some white farmers and suprise suprise the west cares.
 

McTaff

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
This is beginning to sound like something out of Blood Diamond. Send in the white mercenaries and 'snuff everything that moves'. The problem with this (although this isnt a bad idea) is that it would empower and embolden good old Bob like you wouldnt believe. Dont forget he is still worshiped by large segments of his country as the person who freed them from white rule and he uses the fear of white colonial intervention to keep what support he does have. What im reading here will justify him and rally the country behind him because no matter how good the intentions are it would be (non-African) people here would be discussing this topic if the country in question was Rwanda or Somalia (and in both the situation in Zimbabwe would be an improvement over what they currently have)?? :confused:
This post is pretty much spot on, and goes along with everything that has been discussed in the thread:

Mercs are a bad idea, and would be more trouble than it is worth.
No nation would rubber-stamp any troops setting foot on Zimbabwe soil.

For the most part, it seems that whole there is no direct threat to people, other nations or the world economy as a whole, Mugabe will probably be simply slapped on the wrist by (at most) a few more trade embargoes or more restrictions on where he and his buddies can go.

He is in his declining years - it may happen that if he falls ill that another may step forward in an effort to seize power, or at some point another suitable candidate will come to light and elections would reflect a change in the way Mugabe is viewed. In other words: Wait him out and see who is next.
 

McTaff

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
For some reason the middle bit of my last post dissapeared into the ether. basically what i was saying was that if it wasnt for the treatment of the white farmers noone would be talking about this. he would be just another black leader treating his black subjects badly. Africa is full of these situations.. but throw in some white farmers and suprise suprise the west cares.
I think this is not quite the case. However, statements like this one you have made can be viewed as political in nature and are generally not considered as discussion topics on this forum.

==Warning: this is partially political, in order to make a point. It is not a precursor or invitation to a policital discussion==

When the trouble blew up in Rwanda in 1994, very few (if any) whites were initially affected.

The western press is driven by loud minority groups, and sensationalist stories involving shocking details. These include (but are not limited to):
Human rights abuse
Mass killing
Starvation
Racial intolerance
Slavery
Environmental destruction
War.

Any story involving the above is paraded around by the media, and this brings it to the attention of the lobbyists in the US, and the independent/small party MPs of Westminster parliaments. More directly, it is picked up by political activist groups. The importance here is that concrete credence of the situation doesn't have to exist - it can simply be 'leverage' to entice control over certain aspects of the governmental system, whether that be to unite two opposing groups, or to break a coalition, or simply to gain a platform to launch one's own agenda.

This is where it gathers snow and begins to build, and where some people begin to take sides, making it louder, and eventually hitting headlines as a 'right now' problem. To some degree, this is when governments become involved, releasing statements and forming plans to appease the louder constituents. In some cases, the nature of what is going on offends the moral compasses of some governments - pushing them to either begin international intervention, or in the extreme cases it prompts immediate action.

To summarise: It's not a case of "Whites are affected, lets break out the shotguns and go frag some bad guys".

Fear and loathing at what is seen by outsiders as 'brutal, horrific and disgusting', and outright violation of what westerners see as "rights of the common person" often is what powers the outrage. It is seized upon by some who seriously believe in the rights and wrongs of the situation, and also another number of those who are opportunists, using it for their own means.

However once it becomes a national news item, or is introduced to the main floor of government, it usually cannot be ignored by the political powers.

-[somewhat political here]-

In the case of Zimbabwe, think about if a white was in power; and he pushed through a motion that allowed blacks to be kicked off and replaced by whites. Now could you imagine that in this day and age that any country would stand idly by; in particular given the last four decades of international views on South Africa?

Not a chance. Mr White would have found himself in the drivers seat of a plummeting economy due to embargo, zero outside policital support, and hundreds thousands of westerners (white, black and otherwise) either protesting in their own country or even travelling to the source!

Pressure would not only come from within the country, but by the closest neighbours. The US has many anti-discrimination parties and organisations, and they are a very loud voice indeed, so you would expect some sort of reaction from there.

-[/somewhat political here]--

Unfortunately, Mugabe is considered by the west in some cases as "Idi Amin Lite", while not a brutal dictator, he believed to be subverting power in more sinister and veiled ways. In this decade, his country has gone from being a solid, producing economy into a struggling nation.

Regardless of this, there is little that can be done. As previously discussed, 'liberation' of Zimbabwe is almost impossible, and any outside intervention doesn't seem to gather impetus.

(This thread has derailed enough. Have we put this one to rest?)
 
Last edited:
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Mod edit:

I think the political aspects behind any such "interventions" have been thoroughly discussed.

Any further comments in this thread are to be reserved for purely military matters in relation to this topic.

It will be monitored from now on.

Regards

AD
 

Stryker001

Banned Member
From a military perspective one could always send in the TRG, there’s nothing a police tactical operator can’t achieve.
 

McTaff

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
From a military perspective one could always send in the TRG, there’s nothing a police tactical operator can’t achieve.
The trick is finding the basis to send in any group at all.

-

Unfortunately (as someone pointed out), a sniper bullet or a precision strike on the top few people in charge is the only overt way to achieve a result. Troops of any sort will result in backlashes that'll seriously hamper the ability to get anything done (as I posted earlier, and as most people here have agreed).

In a more sinister way, assassination via some of the more insidious ways (poison, or framing someone for murder) would achieve the result, but there is the potential for instability or someone even worse to take control. That result would make the efforts all for nothing.

Nobody would try anything underhanded like assassination, and even if there was, a sympathetic and forward thinking candidate would have to be presented and guaranteed to get into power for it to be made worthwhile - it is no good intervening without being able to place someone into power immediately in a legal way, otherwise there would be continued resistance while "hostile" troops remained in country.

Also, anything that appears to the top officials over there like murder would mean that the next person in power would be treated as suspect, and potentially it would begin a trend of assassinations on successive leaders.

The only two ways Mugabe is going out is either due to natural causes, or enough evidence can be garnered to allow the UN to be involved.
 
Last edited:
Top