What value the State Department?
Part of the Wikileaks package is a cable from the outgoing US Ambassador Dell in 2007 which he gave the title SUBJECT: The End is Nigh.
It is hard to believe that the US "machine" could have read that 2007 situation in Zimbabwe so wrong. Would really like to see some of their pre-1980 Rhodesian era cables and assessments.
tricky things, assumptions
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
You give the State Department/CIA the benefit of the doubt.
I didn't, actually--I merely pointed out what would be evident to anyone who had worked in a foreign ministry, namely that the cable could not be read as reflecting the views of much more than the ambassador of the day.
Indeed, in my experience, cables of that tone often reflect an ambassador's unease that his own views are not universally shared—hence Stan's comment below.
Robert Mugabe 'ready to bury the opposition'
Refreshed by the ZAPU party conference we have some reporting; from The Daily Telegraph:
Quote:
Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe has said his party is ready to bury his Western-backed opposition "forever" as there are warnings his forces are fanning out across the country in a bid to intimidate voters ahead of elections.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...imidation.html
Or the BBC:
Quote:
Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has told the BBC of his desire to remain in power after his party endorsed him as an election candidate. On Saturday he closed his party's conference, saying that the power sharing deal with the MDC party is now dead.
Link, mainly a film clip:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12028675 and a longer written report:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8410357.stm
Elsewhere, on the Zimbabwean expatriate / exile websites, there are more chilling reports; such as this:
Quote:
In the last elections, you voted for the wrong party but today I am happy to see all of you here and I assume that you are here because you support the revolutionary party and what Mudha stands for. "If you disagree with what is being said here, then there is nothing I can do about it and if you don’t vote for us in the next election, this country is huge, we will rule even if you don’t want,” Mnangagwa said.
Mnangagwa, who is feared more than he is respected and was previously tipped to take over the party leadership from President Robert Mugabe, said Zimbabwe belonged to Zanu PF which would not hesitate to bless and reward its own sons who defended the cause of the party.
Link:http://www.zimdiaspora.com/index.php...tips&Itemid=18
Meantime I fear the West will close it's eyes, maybe pray and once more hope SADC (notably President Zuma) can stop such "political campaigning".
VHVTs are evasive & very self-protective
See this Rand monograph, Operations Against Enemy Leaders by Stephen T. Hosmer (11 short pdf downloads at bottom to get entire monograph):
Quote:
Operations targeted against senior enemy leaders have long been viewed as a potential means of shaping the policy and behavior of enemy states. As a result, the United States has launched a variety of overt and covert operations in efforts to attack enemy leaders directly, facilitate their overthrow by coup or rebellion, or secure their ouster through external invasion. This book examines a number of leadership attacks from World War II to the present to offer insights into the comparative efficacy of various forms of leadership attacks, their potential coercive and deterrent value, and the possible unintended consequences of their ill-considered use. The book concludes that direct attacks, coups, and rebellions have met with only limited success and, even when successful, have sometimes yielded counterproductive results. Moreover, neither direct attacks nor coups have been of significant coercive or deterrent value, although rebellions have at times provided useful negotiating leverage. By contrast, external invasions have proved to be more efficacious both in shaping the targeted countries’ policy and behavior and in exerting coercive effects. The book concludes by outlining the likely conditions under which future leadership attacks are likely to be sanctioned and by delineating the prerequisites of effective use of air power in such contexts.
Report is from March 2001. Events since have simply re-inforced its conclusion re: regime removal (but I'd say sans nation-building).
BTW: I'm not suggesting that the US get rid of Mugabe. Zimbabwe is outside of the US zone of force projection if I had my druthers.
Regards
Mike