Zimbabwe surprises me only in that it continues to get worse, long past the point that I'd thought it had bottomed out. I have pretty much given up on Afghanistan as you may have noticed, and I'm not alone, but I think there is a case to be made for going in hard into Zimbabwe and taking out the trash.
There is no longer even a pretense of a democratic process there, and the African countries have no interest in sorting this mess out, so perhaps it's time to get "neo-colonialist" on their asses.
It wouldn't be colonialist, as I have no intention of planting colonists nor exploiting the place for advantageous trade arrangements. A bit of Regime Change is, however, exactly what the doctor ordered.
Mugabe keeps trotting out his "war veterans", but there are lot of the old Rhodesian Army alumni around who could be cadre-d with western forces to kick Mugabe's ass, destroy his powerbase, and provide some muscle for a new government centred around the MDC. They did, after all WIN the election despite widespread manipulation of the results, so I think they represent the legitimate will of the majority.
Under competent management Zimbabwe could again be the breadbasket of southern Africa, and unlike Afghanistan (and perhaps Iraq, etc.) it is not such a basket case that it can't be put back on its' feet. The neighbours can't/won't do the job, but we can, and it would be a worthwhile thing to do with a reasonable timeline and obvious exit strategy.
"In and out clever" was the old term (I think I've used it here before), and is my pragmatic approach. High intensity, medium-risk operations with clear and attainable objectives. Fix things that CAN be fixed, and/or damage our enemies badly enough to set them back. Nobody is rushing to help Zimbabwe because of a lack of pressing geopolitical reasons, overstretch in various Asian quagmires and any number of logistical and political hurdles, but it doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile thing to do.
If the support of South Africa can be secured for the logistics of an operation (in their interest, after all) it can be done. By whom and with what I have no idea at present, but I use this as an example of what we can do if we feel the need to do this sort of thing. The locals are not inherently antagonistic to us and our way of life, making the place a good candidate for nation re-building. The same cannot be said for a lot of other parts of the world.
3 comments:
I am 100% with you on that one!
Sadly, very sadly, the world is ready to see people fighting and dying for an African nation. Effectiveness be damned, no country will support it. I agree too, it would be effective, proper, and viable -- even great PR. As the saying goes "What's in it for us?" -- besides it being the right thing to do that is.
Has any (recent) African mission gone over well?
I assume there's a typo, and you meant "not ready". The last Western thing in Africa I can think off off-hand that worked was Sierra Leone in 2000 when the Brits stepped in to put the finishing pounding on the more fractious elements in that civil war.
I have a post a ways back about the futility of the UN plans for Sudan, and the same applies to pretty much anything else in Africa. It's never a question of what will work, just what can be spun the right way.
The big problem is coalition stuff. Operations by consensus are never responsive enough to just do the job. The Americans did a pretty good job backing up non-islamist and Ethiopian forces in Somalia last year, but most of that is under the radar. That was a self-interested operation, the only kind that ever really work According to me, anyway...
Post a Comment