Invade Zimbabwe call

[Grand Danois]

You could be right!

A crude example, if the life expectancy of an aids afflicted african is half that of one that is not afflicted, and the prevalance rate is 20%, then 33% of the population will get HIV/AIDS.

It's because they die the prevalance rate goes down, while the affliction rate is unaltered.

Some organisations have tried to take credit for successfully combatting HIV/AIDS on basis of the prevalence rate going down (won't mention any), but the truth lies elsewhere. I don't know if it is because of ignorance or propagande they do this.

15-17% prevalance rate would suggest 25-30% risk of affliction in 2006-2007 - crudely put, as I don't know the numbers.

 

[Tempest]

Ok Tempest. Give me an ORBAT in Zim.

Seriously - we would have to agree, this is not the force it once was.

ZiMSAS Strength? Fire Force tactics? North Korean Mercs?

Can you tell us?

This is what I feared when I originally posted - that you will read into it as if I am saying Zimbabwe can withstand a UK invasion - definately not. I am saying it is not easy, and identified locations of heavy equipment other than what had been put in post #125.

In terms of number strengths, I know the know in the past few years the para and commando are now regiments as opposed to battalions. Machanized is now brigade instead of regiments. While I don't have numbers, these reorganizations SUGGESTS increasing numbers, and coupled with arms deliveries, I would not say they are a walk-over.

Yes, I don’t expect them to be as good as they used to be.

 

[Izzy1]

I think we can both agree that invasion is not a viable option.

Still, I don't care anything for Mugabee - he's a nasty SOB. If a brother gets him with a Drugonov - I won't shed a tear. Good riddance.

Zimbabwe should have been Africa's 'tiger economy' a long time ago.


The frightening aspect for me is that Zim is at that at AIDS percentage now. Its a horrible thought - dare I say, UN intervention may have to be armed with condoms and the contreceptive pill?

 

[Tempest]

I think we can both agree that invasion is not a viable option.

Still, I don't care anything for Mugabee - he's a nasty SOB. If a brother gets him with a Drugonov - I won't shed a tear. Good riddance.

Zimbabwe should have been Africa's 'tiger economy' long time ago.

I Aagree with everything in this post!

 

[Izzy1]

I Aagree with everything in this post!

Just out of interest, would you agree with a UK lead invasion involving 10,000 British troops?

 

[Tempest]

I would not. These "well planned" invasions with "over-whelming” fire power tends to creep well beyond initial schedule and scope.

At one point I thought maybe a “Bay of Pigs” type. Lots of Zimbabweans in South African, UK, Botswana, etc. Provide a core/leadership of UK forces and 90” be Zimbabweans in exile. I also think a good force of government administrators have to be trained so that they are put in place and start function within days.

 

[Stryker001]

?

It is in the interest of those around Robert to take steps to limit his political influence and remove him from power.

As if any action is to take place it is those around him who will lose. As the time for intervention approaches, so does the end of Robert at the hands of his own.

 

[swerve]

IIRC HIV/AIDS prevalence rates are down in Africa because... HIV/AIDS afflicted persons are dying faster than new ones are entering the HIV/AIDS pool, relative to the size of the entire pop. It's statistics of demography, not an actual sign of an improving situation.

This varies from country to country. There is no overall pattern. Senegal, for example, has had a very active anti-AIDS campaign for many years, & has kept prevalence rates to a small fraction of what they have reached in some other countries. Uganda had (though it's recently deteriorated) a successful anti-AIDS campaign which reduced infection rates, & prevalence rates fell as a result, without quite reaching the levels seen elsewhere. Zimbabwe has had nothing whatsoever, & government interference means we are short of information on infection rates. We're short of information on all sorts of things there, e.g. the PPP GDP estimate for 2005 is too low to be credible. It reflects the degree to which the state has lost track of the economy as much as the decline of the economy.

I would like to know what is happening in D.R. Congo, but that place is such a mess we really don't know. The incredibly (literally) low GDP figures reflect that.

 

[jshandos]

Wie gehts Herr Leuter.

In the Zimbabwe scenario, it is complex due to the nature of South Africa. My suggestion would be to use St. Helena as a staging area. Once ready, forces from Canada, U.S, U.K, and Germany (volunteers incl.) would invade Namibia(due to it's low population) taking the capital Windhoek(similar to Zim situation). Forces from South Africa (whites) would meet on the southern namibian road to Windhoek protecting the rear while using german namibian's to cause interference with the infrastructure along the border with South Africa(also allied bombers could do level bombing to destroy roadways from SA). American forces would be required to guard the northern border with angola. They would prepare a trap for the Ang's using large numbers of anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft hopefully with help from rogue SA jets. The rogue SA army (militants/veterans of angola/SA war would take part in a surprise attack on Gaberone(secure landing strip and using it for future operations). In the east a sizable portuguese army could take maputo(from Madagascar) forcing massive numbers of refugees into Zimbabwe thus creating chaos. It is at this point that a rebeillon must be incited in Zimbabwe to create anarchy for the advancing German/Brits/Dutch and canadian volunteers. 3 forces of 80'000 must enter Zimbabwe from all directions and push forward into Zambia creating a defensive line. 30,000 reserves would be required.:shudder

 

[jshandos]

Staging in St. Helena(how appropriate). I would take namibia and botswana first on the way their. Force refugees into zimbabwe with special ops. This operation would require at least an army to accomplish and depend on support across the board. This definitely would be a prolonged war. Just the way I like it. The objective would be to take all of southern africa from SA to the congo(excluding Mozambique). Also, I would create SS training camps in Zimbabwe(center of the master race). Might as well do it while we have the chance.

What happens if you miss?

Mod edit: What exactly is the point you are trying to make with comments about creating SS training camps and references to "the master race". Such comments are often considered flamebaiting, in addition to being fftopic. Now, please explain the who, what & why of the hypothetical campaign you proposed to take all of southern Africa.
-Preceptor

 

[Rooivalk]

So in short, the best way you see to remove one dictator who is already giving into international pressure and is now giving up his dictatorship for a multi-party democracy is for all the 1st world nations to invade southern Africa, pretty much wrecking between 4 and 5 perfectly stable countries (Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Mozambique and don’t know how far you mean to push into Angola) at the costs of many lives from civilians and soldiers from both the attacking nations as well as the innocent soldiers trying to protect their countries from being destroyed so one dictator in a different country can be removed, causing civil war in at least two countries from what I can see, causing a refugee problem from 3 counties and destroying the economy of the entire southern section of Africa??? come on guys why didn’t we think of this one before?. This thread is now a bit out of date looking at the current political situation with both parties linked in talks, but I still believe the only way in which Bob could have being removed by force was if there was an AU intervention force backed up by the EU/NATO/UN. The problem is due to all the bad public relation caused by Iraq I doubt that many Zimbabweans would accept an all European and American force to intervene, in the last election even though the opposition won, Bob still had slightly over 40% of the votes which means he does still have quite a bit of support especially amongst the poorer area. Also the zim people have being fed so much propaganda about the British wanting to colonise Zim again and how it was European sanctions that destroyed their economy that they actually sadly believe it, then again due to the crack down on the media that’s all they hear day in and day out. In closing I don’t believe a mass invasion from NATO could really help the situation unless it is lead by a strong AU force.

What ever happened to paragraphing?
-SABRE

 

[jshandos]

You are a true statesman. But letting the communists and muslims take over Africa is not an option either. Foreign control must happen eventually. If not by us then by the oriental legions of India, China, and the Neo-communists of Russia. Efforts must be made. It truly is a conundrum when we can't rely on traditional support from the western allies and European brethren in these countries respectively. We have been indoctrinated by our own goverment for the sake of socialism(Canada). Where will socialism lead us. That's right, COMMUNISM. It is now or never.

 

[Rooivalk]

Sorry Sabre, will work on that

Hmm, I thought this was a thread about the Zim bishop asking the west for intervention, not a thread about the possible communist or Muslim take over of Southern Africa.

To put your mind at rest jshandos, A Muslim takeover is as unlikely as Bush winning another term in office, its not going to happen. (No offence to any supporters of said politician)

As for the communist take over, the only country in threat is South Africa and I doubt it will happen within the next 8 - 10 years so you can worry about that closer to the time.

Sorry for the off topic talk but thought I would reply to the current concern

 

[jshandos]

You are slowly diffusing me. Soon I will be speaking like the Euro-centered version of Nelson Mandela. Wait a minute...did you admit to the possibility of communist takeover of SA. I rest my case. Just kidding.Thank you very much for indulging me.

 

[John Sansom]

No country should attempt a Zimbabwean "corrective" invasion on their own. The best step(s) would be a constant and "robust" talking and public awareness campaign in and through the United Nations. At the same time, let's remember that Uncle Bobby Mugabe is an ageing....oops! I almost said "gentleman". Time (on the short side) might well provide a solution.

If so, the UN needs to stand ready for the insertion of civil affairs units who have some muscle, even if that means a UN force on stand-by. Ideally, said involvement would be by invitation. If that invitation is not forthcoming, the UN cannot be blamed if it simply says, "Lots of luck," and wanders off to, say, Darfur.

Okay. This is no place for snide remarks. The true bottom line is that neighbouring countries must assume a significant aamount of responsibility for whatever UN-sanctioned corrective action takes place. If that turns out to be a disaster, some vigorous involvement by non-African nations might be in order.

Here comes another qualifier.. In all of this, we should not forget the influence and potential of so many of the better informed members of Zimbabwe's citizens. Somewhere along the line, that sector needs to be brought on-side.

 

[OPSSG]

No country should attempt a Zimbabwean "corrective" invasion on their own...

If so, the UN needs to stand ready for the insertion of civil affairs units who have some muscle...

The true bottom line is that neighbouring countries must assume a significant amount of responsibility for whatever UN-sanctioned corrective action takes place...

I agree that it would be foolish for any country should attempt a Zimbabwean "corrective" invasion on their own.

Even well meaning external help with a UN Peacekeeping deployment for a limited time my not always work. Take for instance East Timor, where INTERFET largely succeed in it's original deployment goals. Australia and the certain ASEAN members were naturally concerned and many countries did their best to help. For the first time even tiny Singapore sent a company to operate as peacekeepers.

However, in April 2006, riots broke out in Dili following rivalry within the military and police, which resulted in Operation Astute. If the locals cannot respect the rule of law and do not have such a tradition, any external solution imposed will be only temporary. The problem with removing a dictator is who will replace him?

In many cases, especially for less developed countries, the state institutions are just emerging. A quick intervention itself will not solve the problem. Any intervention needs a long term commitment.

 

[Stryker001]

Yeah Zimbabwe is run by a ruling junta specifically the CIO, so even if Mugabe stood aside Morgan would never have control. The MDC would have to disband the CIO, not an easy task without foreign assistance. The CIO have a political successor to Mugabe they have just not put the person on show to the public or world.

 

[Cooch]

............ in April 2006, riots broke out in Dili following rivalry within the military and police, which resulted in Operation Astute. If the locals cannot respect the rule of law and do not have such a tradition, any external solution imposed will be only temporary. The problem with removing a dictator is who will replace him?

In many cases, especially for less developed countries, the state institutions are just emerging. A quick intervention itself will not solve the problem. Any intervention needs a long term commitment.

History would suggest that you are correct.
Given that our current parliamentary democracies have taken in excess of a millenium to achieve their current form, it is unreasonable to expect a society unaccustomed this form of governmet, to achieve it quickly or smoothly.

That does not mean that it cannot be achieved, or that the effort is not worthwhile. Merely that it is foolish to commence such an intervention with being prepared to make that long-term commitment that you mention.

That may take a generation.

Peter

 

[sunshin3]

That does not mean that it cannot be achieved, or that the effort is not worthwhile. Merely that it is foolish to commence such an intervention with being prepared to make that long-term commitment that you mention.

You have made a good point.

Any intervention in Zimbabwe must be followed by a long term commitment that extends beyond current news cycles.

The problem with a long term deployment of foreign forces is that it must not become a crutch that results in a delay in the timely development of Zimbabwe's state institutions (which will enable the state to stand on its own two feet).

 

[John Sansom]

The current Afghan experience indicates that it may indeed be possible to "occupy" Zimbabwe and, at the same time, allow for the orderly re-development of the country's systems. However, in my ignorance, I would have serious concerns about regional or even tribal rivalries which may become reborn, antagonisms which the West and others may not currently be able to recognize.

Given that posssibility--however remote--the UN must not be permitted to re-commit the mistakes made in its handling of peacekeeping in Rwanda.

Can this be guaraanteed? And by whom?