British military action against Zimbabwe?

[Zachor]

We don't, not even if our infantry establishment was a couple of regiments larger.

Agree there. Sadly.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah, but sod these manpower issues. Even if we had an army twice the size of the Chinese army, all as well equipped as the US army, it would still be a fucking terrible idea.

Absolutely. Fucking hell, does nobody learn anything?

 

[frogwoman]

TBF no one at that time realised what a lunatic he was going to turn out to be. He was a hero to many on the left, and the right considered him a 'Marxist they could do business with'.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

 

[travellerlife]

It's not the Zimbabwe military that any military interventionists would have to worry about, though, it's the paramilitaries that Mugabe and his cronies have continued to feed and arm that would cause problems, people who'll fight because they stand to lose livelihood (and perhaps their lives) if Mugabe is removed.
We know from the history of Zimbabwe and Southern Rhodesia that irregular warfare could tie up any invasion/intervention force for years without achieving anything.
If there's military intervention it needs to come from neighbouring states, and it needs to be large enough and well managed enough to "swamp" the areas where the Mugabe regime's paramilitaries are, to button them up into a defined area and then draw the trap closed around them.

There's no way Britain could muster a force anywhere near large enough to pull this off, and that's what an operation like this would need; sheer manpower.

Spot on, but very unlikely to happen, none of Zimbabwe neighbours would ever consider anything remotely like this, for the simple fact that they do not have the manpower, resources or will for it.

Best we can hope for is Mugabe dieing of lead poisoning or old age and his cronies being forced to negotiate a new deal, in the interim, more people die. Military intervention is never going to happen, Zimbabwe just does not have the strategic importance to the powers that be.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah, but sod these manpower issues. Even if we had an army twice the size of the Chinese army, all as well equipped as the US army, it would still be a fucking terrible idea.

As I said earlier, intervention needs to come from neighbouring states.

That said, I suspect that South Africa may be building toward some form of intervention (just a few "whispers" I've picked up). They're really not very pleased about having Cholera unleashed, and if it escalates much more they may decide that military action makes more sense than having to find space for another couple of million Zimbabwean refugees.
If I were planning such an action, I'd want as many of the neighbouring countries as possible to "sign up", though, even if only so that they could police their borders thoroughly enough to stop Mugabe-ist paramilitaries going to ground in their hinterlands. Also, of course, unified action would make a much better "statement" to the people of Zimbabwe.

 

[TomPaine]

In terms of what the UK can do, you're looking at the wrong problem that needs to be sorted out.

Of course the government needs to change it's foreign policies I don't think anyone here would disagree with you there, but a lot of the exploitation is driven by multi-national corps who sell shite to the West. The windbags in Westminster can say what they like, but until people stop buying slave labour manufactured shite then nothing will change. This means Europe, the US and other Western nations. Of course that is just the tip of the iceberg .

The problem in Zimbabwe is the humanitarian crisis. The kind of changes you want to see aren't going to happen anytime soon. This may be fire fighting and not addressing the root causes, but I believe sometimes you have to do just that unless you are prepared to watch genocide happen.

Western natrions should be rallying the African nations to step up to the plate and solve the crisis. If necessary the UN should provide the food and medicine, but African nations need to step up the plate and protect the refugees and food supplies. If that means Britian and the rest of the EU giving the African nations support in the chambers of the UN and bringing them together then so be it. We have nothing to lose from trying.

 

[travellerlife]

As I said earlier, intervention needs to come from neighbouring states.

That said, I suspect that South Africa may be building toward some form of intervention (just a few "whispers" I've picked up). They're really not very pleased about having Cholera unleashed, and if it escalates much more they may decide that military action makes more sense than having to find space for another couple of million Zimbabwean refugees.

Doubt it, the SA government is currently paralysed with the break away of a large chunk of its top membership to start COPE. If anything it will be limited to support for an internal insurgency, out and out military intervention is certainly not possible. Considering the state of the military in SA, this is the same lot that could not "intervene" (aka invade) Lesotho successfully, a country they surround ! In addition to the large prevalence of HIV within the ranks, lack of skilled personnel such as pilots, does not make for anything resembling a serious military outfit.

 

[frogwoman]

As I said earlier, intervention needs to come from neighbouring states.

That said, I suspect that South Africa may be building toward some form of intervention (just a few "whispers" I've picked up). They're really not very pleased about having Cholera unleashed, and if it escalates much more they may decide that military action makes more sense than having to find space for another couple of million Zimbabwean refugees.
If I were planning such an action, I'd want as many of the neighbouring countries as possible to "sign up", though, even if only so that they could police their borders thoroughly enough to stop Mugabe-ist paramilitaries going to ground in their hinterlands. Also, of course, unified action would make a much better "statement" to the people of Zimbabwe.

True but I wouldn't hold you breath. I heard rumours a few years ago of a SA-backed military coup - don't know what's happening with that ...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Spot on, but very unlikely to happen, none of Zimbabwe neighbours would ever consider anything remotely like this, for the simple fact that they do not have the manpower, resources or will for it.

That said, they may come to believe that they can't afford not to do it, given that their borders tend to be porous, and that regional/tribal affiliations span many of those borders. It may be that some of the neighbouring states are concerned that Zimbabwe's immolation at the hands of Mugabe could have a domino effect on their own states.

Best we can hope for is Mugabe dieing of lead poisoning or old age and his cronies being forced to negotiate a new deal, in the interim, more people die. Military intervention is never going to happen, Zimbabwe just does not have the strategic importance to the powers that be.

Not to the "western" powers, anyway.

As far as Mugabe is concerned, I'd like to think that he'll live to be 100, locked in a cage in central Harare as an example to Zimbabwean politicians of what will happen to any of them that decide that dictatorship is a good idea.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

yeah intervention if it comes at all must come from their neighbours.

If you agree with intervention, why leave it up to someone who's going to botch the job?

 

[travellerlife]

As far as Mugabe is concerned, I'd like to think that he'll live to be 100, locked in a cage in central Harare as an example to Zimbabwean politicians of what will happen to any of them that decide that dictatorship is a good idea.

I'll buy that for a dollar or 50 0000000000000000000000000000000 zim dollars.

 

[Spion]

If you agree with intervention, why leave it up to someone who's going to botch the job?

That's right. We could get those guys who've made a fantastic job of Iraq and Afghanistan in

 

[Brainaddict]

That's right. We could get those guys who've made a fantastic job of Iraq and Afghanistan in

He didn't really think that through did he?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yet another lazy, crypto-racist assumption about Africans.

 

[DotCommunist]

If you agree with intervention, why leave it up to someone who's going to botch the job?

I don't assume they will botch it. I know the British would.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That's right. We could get those guys who've made a fantastic job of Iraq and Afghanistan in

Or if the neighbors were successful, they'd probably just carve up the country and keep it for themselves.

 

[rapattaque]

If military intervention is ruled out, what options can the wider world consider other than sanctions?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yet another lazy, crypto-racist assumption about Africans.

Really. Most of the recent incursions into other countries have been unsuccessful, no matter who's done it. Why would the neighbors of Zimbabwe do any better?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't assume they will botch it. I know the British would.

Which neighbor do you think has the greatest chance: Mozambique, Zambia or Botswana?

S Africa probably has WMD, so they could probably do it.

 

[DotCommunist]

I don't think any of them would be happy with independant action from the others. It would have to be a joint effort. But efforts for peaceful aid etc. should be tried first. imo.

 

[travellerlife]

Which neighbor do you think has the greatest chance: Mozambique, Zambia or Botswana?

S Africa probably has WMD, so they could probably do it.

SA gave up their nuclear arsenal in 1993 just before independence.

Mocambique is slowly recovering from the civil war, one of the poorest nations on earth, so nope. Zambia has a military in much the same state as SA, just smaller and Botswana does not have sufficient manpower to mount a serious attempt, although by all accounts a well trained but small military force. So none of them is the answer. None of them possess the aircraft or logistical means to achieve a serious intervention. Support for an internal insurrection is one option.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Jesus: sounds like the neighbors would 'botch the job'.

 

[belboid]

but some would botch it a damned sight more, and with worse consequences, than others.

 

[travellerlife]

Jesus: sounds like the neighbors would 'botch the job'.

Perhaps they know they cannot do it and leave it. Rather than do it and turn the country from a basket case into a basket case with a supersize of war on the side, destabilising the entire region for years.

 

[Spion]

Or if the neighbors were successful, they'd probably just carve up the country and keep it for themselves.

Really? Where would they get an idea like that from? Do countries do that? Has someone carved up Africa before? Have people invaded countries and tried to steal oil or other natural resources? Tsk

 

[TomPaine]

Really? Where would they get an idea like that from? Do countries do that? Has someone carved up Africa before? Have people invaded countries and tried to steal oil or other natural resources? Tsk

Sadly that is the history of the world...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

but some would botch it a damned sight more, and with worse consequences, than others.

Yeah. That Hutu/Tutsi tiff had a lot of consequences.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Do countries do that? Has someone carved up Africa before? Have people invaded countries and tried to steal oil or other natural resources? Tsk

Yes, yes; and yes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Or if the neighbors were successful, they'd probably just carve up the country and keep it for themselves.

I doubt it. Most of them have something Zimbabwe lacks: Political stability. They wouldn't want to compromise that by annexing territory, with all the accompanying side-issues that would bring.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Really. Most of the recent incursions into other countries have been unsuccessful, no matter who's done it. Why would the neighbors of Zimbabwe do any better?

Most of the recent ones have been looting expeditions into Congo, they weren't meant to stabilise or succour.