Zimbabwe: it’s time to go in
Last week, as a result of an article written for The First Post, I was invited by the BBC World Service to argue the merits of using military intervention to topple Robert Mugabe's regime. Somewhat reluctantly, and with weary awareness of the counter arguments, I called for anything from a military presence to enforce a fair run-off election later this month to a decapitation strike against the Zanu-PF leadership (resulting in arrests, ideally). I made it clear that, for political reasons, military action would need to be African-led, but Western backed; that to baulk at the possibility of bloodshed was to ignore the reality that bloodshed is already happening in Zimbabwe, with increasing frequency and intensity; and, in summary, that the military option was only to be considered when all else had failed. I should have been stronger. All else has failed. It quickly became clear that few involved in the BBC discussion had the first clue what positive, non-violent steps could be taken. Between rehashing the cliche that white people must not get involved, and expressing their unquestioned belief that any kind of military action is de facto illegal, most contributors were really hoping the problem would somehow just go away of its own accord ­ - a view that is costing lives in Zimbabwe every day. Mugabe's campaign is now being run by the state security forces. Dozens of MDC activists have been sadistically murdered. Thousands have been beaten; some, like the man pictured here, have had their arms and legs broken. And ten times more have been made homeless by Zanu-PF intimidation (making it impossible for them to vote in the run-off on June 27). At a rally on Monday, Mugabe told his supporters: "We are not going to give up our country because of a mere X. How can a ballpoint fight with a gun?" It is clear that Zanu-PF will use any means necessary to secure an election victory. Yet the international community refuses to ensure a free and fair election, even when Mugabe calls the fight for the presidency an "all-out war". Refuting the argument for intervention, one commentator piously informed me that "Zimbabweans are their own liberators". Wrong. Zimbabweans were their own liberators but they have long since become their own oppressors. And, hamstrung by our colonial past, we have watched them 'progress' from a system of white tyranny to one of black. Zimbabwean democracy is not served by pretending Zimbabweans are in a position to sort matters out for themselves. If Gordon Brown seriously believes that "Mugabe must not be allowed to steal the election" then it's time David Miliband and Douglas Alexander stopped sounding off like impotent school prefects, and instead organised support for the only remaining course of action. The political and diplomatic fall-out (with China, for example, as well as with most African nations) will simply have to be absorbed as the cost of doing the right thing. "They think they are protected by the British and the Americans," Mugabe claims of the opposition MDC. Well, it's time they were. Without intervention, and soon, it will not be long before there is no opposition. Who will say we did our best for Zimbabwean democracy then? http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/42894,opinion,zimbabwe-its-time-for-the-west-to-go-in

The problem with military intervention in Zimbabwe to remove Mugabe is that whoever then replaces him will never be seen as a legitemate ruler. He will be a ruler 'imposed' by the occupying force, not one chosen by the people. Mugabe will be seen, especially among other African states, as a victim of aggression, regardless of whether he'd been good or bad. We went into Iraq to remove a 'bad leader' and have paid a high price for it ever since. The people of Iraq do not appear to be grateful. Maybe the majority didn't want us to intervene in that way. Of course, we do not know if the majority of people of Zimbabwe would want us to invade their lands. The future of Zimbabwe must be left to it's people. They must make the decisions and take the initiative. They have already replaced the government. Now we must see if they replace the President. If they do, and Mugabe ignores the recorded will of the people, then maybe some intervention would work to ensure the legitemate hand over of power. More than that could be a major mistake. But that's just my opinion.

Meanwhile, Mugabes thugs continue to do this to people. And worse Is there no limit to what we, and the rest of the civilized world will stand by and watch happen? Would we stand by and watch thugs do this to people in the street?

Jerri Surely going into Iraq to topple Saddam sets a precedent here? When I Come to Power, Britain and our allies will abandon this PC nonsense of being frightened to intervene in former colonies. I am quite sure that we could topple the illegitimate "President" of Rhodesia without too much difficulty. The Africans will never do it. They probably rather admire Mugabe, who must have a larger Swiss Bank Account than most other leaders. And they don't hold elections on the whole, preferring to be "elected" for life. I don't know why Mugabe does, really. He certainly doesn't intend to abide by the result! Send an aerial gunboat and a platoon of SAS to take the p;lace over again!

Maybe you can form a veterens army and lead these troops in yourself, Bear. Regular British troops admit to already being stretched, with involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc. It seemed an easy task to depose Saddam, and it was, but we didn't expect these consequences. Afghanistan looks never ending, with over 100 British troops dead. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to explain to our troops that they have to risk their lives in yet another overseas war, possibly against gorilla fighters. They mostly volunteered to protect and defend British people, but we soon won't have enough left in this country to do that. It's easy to be gung ho with other people's lives. Sorry if that's too PC.

No, that's not too PC! And you are right, of course. Our forces are overstretched as it is. But whereas Afghanistan and Iraq are really damn all to do with Britain, Rhodesia is historically bound up with us. WE installed this monster, who was not such a monster in those days when he was the darling of the Left and the London School of Economics. So we bear some responsibility for the poor people we have abandoned to his care. It is suggested that Mugabe has some horrible degenerative mental disorder. That might explain his personal behaviour, but does not go far to account for the behaviour of all his sidekicks. My own old-fashioned view is that Africans are not, on the whole, awfully clever at running countries. They would be wise to invite the Colonial Service back to do the job for them! :wink:

Only a UN peace-keeping force (if we can call one up) should go in there.

It will always be Rhodesia to me....