CSM
Senior Member
NATO AIR said:i respectfully disagree
as i 've noted in the past, the obvious model for an intervention in darfur is operation provide comfort, where we saved the kurds from starvation and disease while protecting them from saddam's vengeful wrath.
in northern iraq, we had US, british and french troops, with NATO airpower providing the neccessary no-fly zone.
in darfur, we would have African Union troops with a 1,000 NATO force augment, Americans, Brits, Aussies, Italians and Czechs. The air power would come from one of three Naval and Air Force bases in Europe, (our base (ROTA) in spain and any one of our several bases in italy and sicily.)
the french have even given their permission to the african union or intervening power to use their premium airfield in chad.
this isn't impossible, and it wouldn't stretch our forces further. Remember, the Army is the only overstretched chapter of the military. The Marines, Air Force and Navy have problems, but they remain as ready for deployments as they've ever been.
We can and must intervene in Darfur.
All true Nato, but it still costs money and you still need boots on the ground. Also, we are saying much the same thing. My point was the US could not do it alone. As you point out, we would have to have the help of the Brits, et al.
As for the Air Force and Navy, yes they are certainly deployable. There is no doubt in my mind that the US Air Force can handle anything flying and I suspect the US Navy could hold their own against the Janjaweed Navy (sorry, couldn't resist the jab!). However, neither can intervene on the ground where the atocities are taking place. That is unless you propose taking sailors and airmen and making them infantry.