WTFish Article of the Day: US Report Describes Sudan As ‘Strong Partner’ In War On Terrorism

Posted on May 9, 2007
Filed Under Sudan, WTFish?, America |

I had a major “WTF reaction” when I read the title of this article:

May 5, 2007 (WASHINGTON) — Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday challenged a recent State Department report that described the government of Sudan as a “strong partner in the War on Terror,” citing the killing of hundreds of thousands of people in the Darfur region of that country.

Interesting, so now Darfur is  both genocide and terrorism but that’s not the main point.

The senators also questioned how Sudan could be considered a strong ally in the counter-terrorism campaign if the same State Department report listed it as a state sponsor of terrorism that provides “critical support to non-state terrorist groups.” The department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism includes Iran and North Korea.

Exactly! Make up your minds, which one is it, a strong partner, or a terrorism sponsoring state?

“We need to understand the basis for this description, especially since some are suggesting that Sudan’s cooperation on counter-terrorism is a good reason for the U.S. not to intervene to stop the genocide in Darfur,” Wyden said in an interview.

Maybe it is a reason, maybe not, I don’t know, but I do know one thing for sure. Bush has been very patient. And no, unlike previously I don’t think it’s because he’s too busy with Iraq. After all we did witness the United States assisting the Ethiopian army in the bombing raids conducted against suspected al-Qaeda fighters in Somalia recently. It didn’t require much effort or resources and surely conducting one in Darfur won’t be different. So why didn’t it happen until now? The “he’s too busy with Iraq” idea doesn’t make much sense to me now. I guess the janjaweed and suspected al-Qaeda fighters are classified very differently from one another. At least he thinks so too

“They are a damn good partner in the war on terror,” said Raphael Perl, an analyst at the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress. “They have cooperated on many, many issues.”

Perl applauded the State Department for listing Sudan as being helpful on counter-terrorism matters, even if it remains on the list of state sponsors. He also said the issue of whether Sudan should remain on the blacklist is a “political hot potato” that is separate from Darfur.

“Darfur is not terrorism,” Perl said.

I’m getting the feel that there are 2 kinds of crowds, the “Darfur is terrorism” crowd and the” Darfur is not terrorism, Sudan is a strong partner in the war on terror” crowd. The State Department might have both of them working there. I don’t know. All I know is that they defintely need to make up their mind. I’m tired of being a citizen of a country listed as a terrorism sponsoring state. But hey on the bright side, at least Iran is on the list too, which means we won’t be feeling lonely anytime soon.

PS: sorry for the lack of posts in the previous days. I’m super busy and my internet connection at home is screwed. Blogging from work. Laterz…  :)

Comments

16 Responses to “WTFish Article of the Day: US Report Describes Sudan As ‘Strong Partner’ In War On Terrorism”

  1. Finnpundit on May 9th, 2007 5:55 am

    Perhaps you’ll probably understand why many educated people in the US call the State Department by its moniker: “Foggy Bottom”.

    What this means is that the US State Department is a huge bureaucracy peopled with very educated, eager and smart people, all of whom would love to see their vision as to what the US should do become actual policy, despite the fact that the Constitution clearly delineates that responsibility to the President.

    These people are up and down the line of responsibility, so sometimes no one is exactly sure who comes up with the sentiments in terims of advice as to how certain foreign policy should be conducted. There is no bottom line; there is only advice, from “experts”, all in different levels of power and influence (and the US State Department has experts on every nation, every language), who give murky advice as to what might be the best possible thing to do… maybe.

    No wonder Rumsfeld won the contest between him and Colin Powell. Unfortunately, that little victory might not have been in the best interests of the US as a whole, in the long run.

    But that’s how a responsible democracy works: slowly, and with much deliberation.

    As to this latest missive, it is obvious that it points to a renewed commitment to Sudan’s part in taking an aggressive stance against anti-American Al-Qaeda terrorists (I pointed this out at an earlier post). It seems that the information flow from Sudan straight to the CIA has already started, and the State Department knows this.

    Shouldn’t it be obvious that the US is going to eventually side with a government like that? That may be upsetting to many who may care about Darfur, but then why not question Sudan’s desire to engage with several antithetical parties at the same time?

    In other words, Sudan is now engaging with the US/CIA, Janjaweed genocidists, Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, the Arab Legion, the UN, the EU, the African Union, China/CNOOC - and, maybe a little bit, it’s own public’s opinion - all at the same time.

    If there is anyone sending out confusing signals, perhaps the US should not be the first one to be singled out.

  2. jonah84 on May 9th, 2007 7:34 am

    Drima, I think that is just geopolitics. I do remember reading some where that in 90s, the Sudanese government offered US government Laden supposedly at a time when the government was hardcore islamist.

    And in terms of Bush been tied down in Iraq? Like you said there was involvement in Somalia… But in that case, the US was able to use one African people(Ethiopia or ethiopians) to kill another African people.. on the cheap… Now the funny thing is Ethiopia for that adventure bought its arms from North Korea with American “permission”.. Don’t forget North Korea is in Axis of evil?

    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/15/MNGVLP6LVQ1.DTL&type=politics

    If you are looking for some sort of moral consistency or even consistency in international geopolitics… I think it is bottom line.. we are after all living in capitalist world..

  3. lirun on May 9th, 2007 7:50 am

    dude.. you crack me up!!
    seriously.. too funny

  4. The Raccoon on May 9th, 2007 8:28 am

    Jonah -

    Uhm… I guess Somalia’s threats and attacks against Ethiopia had nothing to do with Ethiopia’s attack. Nor had the psychotic and volatile Islamist clan rule in Somalia, which threatened to spill over into Ethiopia. It was just Americans using Ethiopia to attack. And the Ethiopians, being Negroes, don’t have the presence of mind to actually decide stuff on their own.

    Did I get you right?

  5. Craig on May 9th, 2007 12:23 pm

    I think you misunderstood, Raccoon. Jonas was quite clear that the problems are all because we live in a capitalistic world :)

  6. Drima on May 9th, 2007 4:04 pm

    “If there is anyone sending out confusing signals, perhaps the US should not be the first one to be singled out.”

    You’re right Finnpundit. Sudan is certainly sending out some pretty mixed up signals. A mistake I sometimes make is overlooking the fact the Sudanese government itself consists of ideologically diverse people and not a more or less homogenous bunch. In a way that contributes to the mixed signals but engaging different antithetical parties is also a way of keeping options open.

    The US State Deparment people need to make up their minds and the Sudanese government needs to decide where it will stand and how that will be in our interests.

    Jonah, on the whole deal with America letting Ethiopia buy weapons from North Korea, I agree with you, it’s messed up. I didn’t even know about it… but man seriously… you make the whole Somalia/Ethiopia thing sound as if that’s America’s fault!! That’s too much victimhood for me to swallow. Point a finger and three will point back at you.

  7. Drima on May 9th, 2007 4:07 pm

    lirun, regarding the videos, no problemo. it’s all good and I’m looking forward to them. I’ve never met or communicated with a Sudanese Jew before so I’m excited. God bless the internet :)

  8. jonah84 on May 10th, 2007 6:45 am

    Raccoon, you might want to watch your language.. your comment “And the Ethiopians, being Negroes, don’t have the presence of mind to actually decide stuff on their own.” To be honest as an African person, I not only find that comment to be loaded with racist sentiment or thinking but actually offensive. If this is your attempt to use irony or humor- maybe it is acceptable in your country or your part of world but I just do not subscribe to it.

    Drima, I think you know from my previous response in your blog you know do not subscribe to victimhood notion. I just know talking to my somali and ethiopian friends and reading for myself that the recent invasion a la pre-emptive war similiar to Iraq is causing a lot of havoc for large number of somali civilian.. here just an example

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2049374,00.html

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2067951,00.html

    I just hate to see my fellow African..especially civilian suffering. Of course, I hold leaders in Ethiopia and Somalia accountable. Who is else can we blame? However, America did provide logistic, satellite, and air support for the Invasion due the suspecion of Al qada presence in Islamic Court.

    Why does the leader of an East African powerhouse(miltary) like Ethiopia need to invade, I understand if they were invaded?

    The country has one of lowest development index is one of the poorest countries in the world… the leadership could focus on the development and an invasion should be the last resort…

    Not only does an invasion cause more deaths and more animosity but badly needed development resources is also wasted.
    In this case, I guess the North Korean governement does make money maybe to continue the nuclear weapon program…

  9. Roman Kalik on May 10th, 2007 8:53 am

    Raccoon, you might want to watch your language.. your comment “And the Ethiopians, being Negroes, don’t have the presence of mind to actually decide stuff on their own.” To be honest as an African person, I not only find that comment to be loaded with racist sentiment or thinking but actually offensive. If this is your attempt to use irony or humor- maybe it is acceptable in your country or your part of world but I just do not subscribe to it.

    Jonah, Raccoon was ridiculing your own logic. Drima also noticed your victim mentality. By your obnoxious fixation on the “Evil Capitalist USA That Manipulates Poor Africans” you essentially say that Africans can’t decide what to do for their own reasons and interests. So if you think in a self-derogatory manner, don’t expect others to approve of it. In fact, expect to be slapped in the face with ridicule such as the above in an attempt to wake you up.

    In any case, Ethiopia’s arms deal is just that: Ethiopia’s. I don’t like it, but as long as Ethiopia is unwilling to buy its arms elsewhere, this is what we’ll have to live with. Or is damaging Ethiopia’s military a good thing?

  10. The Raccoon on May 10th, 2007 10:46 am

    Jonah -

    Where did you do your humorocromy?

  11. Drima on May 10th, 2007 2:01 pm

    jonah84, you have my apologies. Yes, I remember now from our colonialism related discussions that you didn’t display any victimhood mentality there but in this one frankly, it seems a lot like victimhood to me.

    I’m not ever going to deny how badly Somalis are suffering from the war and Ethiopia’s invasion. I hate the whole thing as it’s really messy and I seriously despise the so called “Islamic” Courts as they were the ones openly declaring that they were eventually going to wage war against Ethiopia. What happened is that Ethiopia simple launched a pre-emptive war to smash the enemy. The arms deal with North Korea and how the United States excused it is obviously hypocritical but by now I’m starting to accept the fact that in international politics every country (including USA) will more or less bend the rules once in a while to satisfy its self interests. I hate the reality as I can be too much of an idealist sometimes but hey, it’s a fact we’ll have to get used to.

    As for Raccoon, I guess different people react differently. When it comes to me, I can be sensitive when jokes are made about Islam or religion in general. However when it comes to race related issues, I’m cool depending on the intent. I’ve known Raccoon for a long while now (almost a year) and he’s actually not a racist if you get to know him.

    Sometimes, he may be slightly hot tempered and vulgar though.

    Hehehehe :)

    Right Raccoon?

    But anyways Jonah, I can’t really blame the whole Ethiopia/Somalia thingy on America. Some other issues, yes certainly but not this one. Ethiopia invaded and needed assistance. America took the opportunity as there were shared interests involved. Did I like watching the ordeal on TV? Hell no. I have Somali friends who told me terrible stories too.

    I hated it but it’s not as simple as “evil capitalist America made them kill each other”.

  12. Roman Kalik on May 10th, 2007 2:16 pm

    It is easy to say “suffocate N. Korea to stop their nuclear project”. It stops being easy when you realize that there are many other issues that may prove to be a problem in the long term. If the US could focus solely on N. Korea, then Ethiopia’s arms deal would have been stopped. Unfortunately, the Islamic Courts in Somalia presented a threat to more than just Ehiopia. Chaos expands all too easily.

    This Islamic Courts could be nipped in the bud before they became a more serious issue for the rest of the world, or even the rest of Africa. Ethiopia saw them as a clear and present threat (which they were).

    Yes, the US bent the rules, but it wasn’t out of some evil self-interest. It bent the rules because this issue could be handled now, and the arms deal was considered to be a price worth paying.

    Sometimes, all the options you have are bad. So you take the lesser of evils. Did it break an ideal the US should strive for? No, it did not. Unless of course, “ideal” means focusing on solely one issue to the complete exclusion of all others. The world is more complex than that, though. You can’t do things one step at a time, otherwise someone might just push you down the stairwell in a few years….

    Long-term, that’s the key. Long-term and wide-range. Not *too* wide-range, but not too narrow-range.

    Want me to give you an example of narrow-range? Letting Syria occupy Lebanon in exchange for help in Iraq in the First Gulf War.

    One step forward, and two steps back… You don’t get too far like that.

  13. lirun on May 10th, 2007 2:23 pm

    shes in eilat right now.. when she gets back we’ll have a video session

    ;)

  14. The Sudanese Thinker » US Sudan Envoy Andrew Natsios On Darfur: Not Genocide on June 1st, 2007 6:05 pm

    […] Sudanese intelligence and the CIA cooperating on terrorism issues and a recent report describing Sudan as a strong partner in the war on terrorism, we have something else which I just discovered. This. Andrew Natsios, the US envoy to Sudan is […]

  15. The Sudanese Thinker » Sudan Spies For US In Iraq: Indeed We Are A Strong Partner In the War on Terror! on June 18th, 2007 4:22 pm

    […] is a struggle within the US government on what to do about Darfur, hence the mixed signals and contradicting […]

  16. Chages In US Policy Towards Sudan On the Way? : The Sudanese Thinker on December 23rd, 2007 4:34 pm

    […] have been many mixed signals coming from the US in regards to matters on Sudan and Darfur. Those gave me some serious […]

Leave a Reply