boertjie wrote:
Cliff
In the article itself they had it right at least....
Another viewpoint:
I wonder if the build-up of troops was not for the DRC to begin with, rather than for the CAR. May-be the CAR became a "handy" decoy when it blew-up in RSA'a faces.
Do you guys think, or maybe have some proof, that the equipment will be used in the DRC? Including the Rooivalk and Gripens.
Do anybody knows about the size of the force that was send to Uganda and if this force will be deployed to the DRC?
I think this whole thing has been deliberately made as confusing as possible in order to disguise the true reason for tactical purposes. The President still did not inform parliament about this latest troop deployment yet, has he?
No, I think the confusion in the public domain is as a result of:
- Confusion and criminally poor planning and bypassing the oversight processes of the democracy at top level, (the minister of defense gave a pathetic display of absolute cluelessness in her presentation to the military oversight committee last week.)
- A knee-jerk fire fighting approach to the CAR debacle after the house has completely burned down,
- The fact that the Francophone African nations basically told Zuma two words (F Off) with the result that he had to bring back the "firefighters" in a hurry,
- Since South Africa is not welcome in the CAR and other Francophone African countries any more, South Africa's quick changing of priorities to increase its involvement in the DRC in conjunction with the new UN resolution to escalate its involvement in the DRC from peacekeeping to peace enforcement ,
- A deliberate blackout of information to parliament and the public (as if we are a dictatorship instead of a democracy where the executive authorities are accountable to parliament for their actions, especially any external military adventures.)