Deadliest war since WW2

[tomsnowman123]

It's kind of funny to me that so many people believe we need to start sending people or troops to Africa, when in reality that would be every bit as bad, if not worse, then Iraq, with guerilla warfare, militia, etc. We should not go in there; we could not fix it in Somalia, I highly doubt we can fix it now. We can't just start marching troops into another country.

 

[Kozmos]

I doubt it would be as much of a problem as Iraq, as they are a disorganized bunch unlike the insurgents in Iraq.

 

[tomsnowman123]

I doubt it would be as much of a problem as Iraq, as they are a disorganized bunch unlike the insurgents in Iraq.

I was under the impression that there are two main factions, southern-based rebels, and the government.

 

[jameson]

And we, the West (the US) should not attempt to bring about this environment. We're great at kicking butt and taking names and winning wars, but we can't nation build worth a damn.

I pretty much agree with everything else you wrote, but I think the comment about nation building should remain limited to the US. Not that I think the US is inherently incapable of doing it, but it's just not something that its military has been designed to do There are many other Western countries who have had extensive experience in peacekeeping and nation-building missions. We just need the US to kick butt first so the evildoers will listen to the rest of us .

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Civil wars are bad for business. Bringing stability and peace would increase the productivity of the region.

The civil war is bad for Congolese business, not ours. About the only way the costs of invasion could be offset or profited from within my lifetime would be to enslave the populace and use them to extract the resources for free. The Congo's lack of productivity is not really preventing our prosperity, only theirs. Let them fight. When the war is over and the defeated are banished to the realm of memory, the Congo will be able to get on with it's life and use it's resources to it's advantages. You see, the only way for this war to end is for one side or the other to be destroyed. Peacekeepers will only stop the fighting temporarily and it will resume the second they are gone. Let the Congo get it out of their system, the country will either break up into smaller nations like Jugoslavia, or one group will prevail and unite the country.

 

[blackheart]

The civil war is bad for Congolese business, not ours. About the only way the costs of invasion could be offset or profited from within my lifetime would be to enslave the populace and use them to extract the resources for free. The Congo's lack of productivity is not really preventing our prosperity, only theirs. Let them fight. When the war is over and the defeated are banished to the realm of memory, the Congo will be able to get on with it's life and use it's resources to it's advantages. You see, the only way for this war to end is for one side or the other to be destroyed. Peacekeepers will only stop the fighting temporarily and it will resume the second they are gone. Let the Congo get it out of their system, the country will either break up into smaller nations like Jugoslavia, or one group will prevail and unite the country.

You forget that we have already dipped our hands in and some countries are supporting the various factions against each other.

 

[jameson]

I once saw a History Channel documentary on mercenaries in Africa and how 100 mercenaries accomplished something a national army couldn't do and took on 10,000 absolutely newbie rebels without suffering a casualty. I believe this was in Angola and the United Nations ordered these mercenaries out just as the rebel's were being put on the spot. Then something like 1000 United Nation soldiers couldn't do a single thing.
.

Try Zaire/ Democratic Republic of the Congo instead.
Mercenaries were involved in fighting the Simba rebellion centered around Stanleyville/Kisangani, where the insurrection was indeed put down by a combination of the Zaire national army, Belgian paratroopers (transported in US airplanes) and a sizable group of mercenaries (who later rebelled at Kivu). UN soldiers were in the country before any mercenaries ever went in, and succeeded in quelling the Katangan rebellion (which occurred earlier). They were out before the Simba rebellion occurred and mercenaries appeared on the scene.

As far as I'm aware, no UN troops went to Angola until the late nineties at the end of the MPLA/UNITA civil war.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

You forget that we have already dipped our hands in and some countries are supporting the various factions against each other.

So? Congo is down and her neighbors are taking advantage of it. I still don't see why we have to send an invasion force to the country. The fact is that there is no reason, or one would have already been sent. This is a forgotten war, in a forgotten country that no one outside of Africa really cares about. These people will be killing each other with or without our assistance. They chose to go to war of their own accord, now they must carry it through to the bitter end, or stop fighting of their own accord. I don't see why we have to go around and play nurse to all the messed up places on this planet.

 

[blackheart]

So? Congo is down and her neighbors are taking advantage of it. I still don't see why we have to send an invasion force to the country. The fact is that there is no reason, or one would have already been sent. This is a forgotten war, in a forgotten country that no one outside of Africa really cares about. These people will be killing each other with or without our assistance. They chose to go to war of their own accord, now they must carry it through to the bitter end, or stop fighting of their own accord. I don't see why we have to go around and play nurse to all the messed up places on this planet.

Ok let me make it clear:
The West undoubtedly had an influence in the war for the Congo by either supporting the various civil factions, or supplying the other countries fighting for a piece of the country.

And I'll give you a good reason why:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke

 

[CaptainF]

Why is it that some people wish that we hadn't gone to Iraq, and now wish us to go to the Congo?

Well, I think intervention is more justified in this case, but there is no guarantee that it will work, and we have already blown all of our military $$$ on the Iraq War cesspool.

Lets face it, the World is a sad place.

 

[JerichoHill]

I pretty much agree with everything else you wrote, but I think the comment about nation building should remain limited to the US. Not that I think the US is inherently incapable of doing it, but it's just not something that its military has been designed to do There are many other Western countries who have had extensive experience in peacekeeping and nation-building missions. We just need the US to kick butt first so the evildoers will listen to the rest of us .

Sorry, I meant the US should not nation-build. There are some other Western Countries that do a better job.

Guess we agree all around, imagine that

 

[Atropos]

I doubt it would be as much of a problem as Iraq, as they are a disorganized bunch unlike the insurgents in Iraq.

That's part of the problem. Imagine a country the size of Western Europe and divided into tiny fiefdoms "governed" (if that's the right word for sporadic raiding) by militias taking advantage of the breakdown of order to loot, rape and pillage. Invade? Invade what? It would be like punching a cloud.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Ok let me make it clear:
The West undoubtedly had an influence in the war for the Congo by either supporting the various civil factions, or supplying the other countries fighting for a piece of the country.

And I'll give you a good reason why:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke

That is no good reason. By Burke's reasoning we should have invaded the USSR, since they killed millions, did not keep their word to free the states of eastern Europe, and actively tried to enslave the world to their version of communism. Thank god the soviets weren't ruled by anyone espousing Burkes idea of foreign policy either. We were actively oppressing the workers and trying to spread the evil and decadence of capitalism all over the world. Say we did invade the Congo, would you be willing to be drafted to fight there? The place is likely to go the way of Vietnam, with a lot of jungle fighting and guerilla warfare. As can be seen by the present situation, the natives are a tenacious bunch, willing to fight long and hard. Our army is stretched thin just by a country like Iraq, which is relatively easy to occupy compared with the Congo. Then we come to the economics of the matter, the government is already in heavy debt, and invasion would cost money likely to run to the billions and higher. And this is just the Congo, you could probably dig up dozens of countries with similar problems and backgrounds. Happy Crusading.

 

[Kozmos]

That's part of the problem. Imagine a country the size of Western Europe and divided into tiny fiefdoms "governed" (if that's the right word for sporadic raiding) by militias taking advantage of the breakdown of order to loot, rape and pillage. Invade? Invade what? It would be like punching a cloud.

That's why you have to scour the country. The militias usually have a camp and a leader, but they sure as hell aint educated or smart enough to hide or effectivly fight a decent organized army. The US have satellites, UAVs & UCAVs , combat helicopters, M1A2 tanks, not to mention the giant airforce. And of course the sweet sweet napalm and WP. This would be a cakewalk compared to Iraq.

NOTE: I'm not saying the US should take any military action in Congo, that would be just stupid.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I think someone in the West needs to step in and stop this, now.

As mentioned by others, who exactly? How exactly? The military? Endless foreign aid supplies?

Every time we try to step in and help somewhere all we get is a chorus of international criticism and protests, dead soldiers and cries that there goes big bad imperialistic America sticking its nose into the internal workings of other sovereign nations.

What we would like to see happen and what we can actually make happen are two different things. Some parts of the world are just a mess and the best of intentions get swallowed up in a black hole of despair.

Does anyone remember Somalia?

Lets face it, the World is a sad place.

 

[Atropos]

That's why you have to scour the country. The militias usually have a camp and a leader, but they sure as hell aint educated or smart enough to hide or effectivly fight a decent organized army. The US have satellites, UAVs & UCAVs , combat helicopters, M1A2 tanks, not to mention the giant airforce. And of course the sweet sweet napalm and WP. This would be a cakewalk compared to Iraq.

NOTE: I'm not saying the US should take any military action in Congo, that would be just stupid.

Oh, of course the US wouldn't have any military problems fighting militias mostly armed with nothing more technologically advanced than machine guns. The problem is that, unlike Iraq during the war itself, there is no single command, indeed no relationship, among these thousands of separate militias. You would have no problems stepping on an ant, but try individually catching and stepping on all the ants in 200 anthills and you'll see the problem.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Does anyone remember Somalia?

Yep, and Congo would be every bit as bad, if not worse. Military involvement is unrealistic, and probably would not achieve anything except dead soldiers and more worldwide America bashing. The world will never be perfect, and we have problems here at home to fix. Not to mention going to Congo would stretch an already stretched out military.

 

[jameson]

As mentioned by others, who exactly? How exactly? The military? Endless foreign aid supplies?

Every time we try to step in and help somewhere all we get is a chorus of international criticism and protests, dead soldiers and cries that there goes big bad imperialistic America sticking its nose into the internal workings of other sovereign nations.

I don't recall any outrage over the interventions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo (well, maybe over Kosovo from the Left), but that was a NATO operation as much as an American one). The difference being that the first three operations at least had UN assent; I suppose that you don't include Iraq as an example of the US trying to "help".

However, the point of the original article is that someone somewhere needs to do something. It doesn't necessarily have to be the US; in fact, there are no Americans among the 17,500 UN soldiers already in the country. If they do want to help, so much the better, but that doesn't have to mean troops; it could just mean money and/or logistical support for MUNOC and political support for strengthening its mandate and increasing its size. If other countries are prepared to pony up the troops, would that be too much to ask ? The Congo, and this world, are only truly lost if nobody bothers to try and save them.

 

[tomsnowman123]

I don't recall any outrage over the interventions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo (well, maybe over Kosovo from the Left), but that was a NATO operation as much as an American one). The difference being that the first three operations at least had UN assent; I suppose that you don't include Iraq as an example of the US trying to "help".

Well, the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia originally involved only US troops, we eventually got Pakistan and Malaysia to send troops to help after the operation failed to go as planned. The failure in Somalia helped lead a shift in American politics and thinking, as those in favor of military intervention in other third world countries decreased in number, many people wanted to just stay out of other problems.

The Congo, and this world, are only truly lost if nobody bothers to try and save them.

There are so many countries in the world with problems (besides ours) we can't go around trying to "fix" all of them. (By fixing I mean trying to force our Democratic belief system upon them.)

 

[Kozmos]

Oh, of course the US wouldn't have any military problems fighting militias mostly armed with nothing more technologically advanced than machine guns. The problem is that, unlike Iraq during the war itself, there is no single command, indeed no relationship, among these thousands of separate militias. You would have no problems stepping on an ant, but try individually catching and stepping on all the ants in 200 anthills and you'll see the problem.

If planned and executed systematically I see no problem. Attack from the right angle and continue from that position spreading outwards, sweeping the entire country and crushing rebels/militias. When I was comparing Congo with Iraq, I was refering to the insurgency not the war itself. In comparison with Iraqi insurgents who are trained somewhat, the Congo Rebels/Militias are a most disorganized bunch of uneducated primitive grunts.
I hardly think there are thousands of militias, a hundred of them tops considering they often fight with each other.