US Aircraft, UN Helicopter Attacked In South Sudan

Tyler Durden's picture

With a wave of detente spilling over the Middle East, following the surprising US overture to calm relations with Syria and Iran just months after it nearly launched an offensive war in the country over a few fabricated YouTube clops Looks like Africa will be the next geopolitical hotspot. But while France is the figurehead leading the offensive over west Africa, focusing on Mali and the Central African Republic, where they are "peacekeeping" (with the support of US drones), east Africa appears set for a full-blown flare out, with the Sudan area emerging as the dominant zone of instability and future escalation. Which is perhaps why not only a US aircraft, but a UN helicopter, both came under fire in the Sudan over the past 24 hours in what is assured to generate an "appropriate" response by the US. 

First, Reuters reports about a U.S. aircraft which was by gunfire in South Sudan:

A U.S. aircraft came under fire on Saturday on a mission to evacuate Americans from spiraling conflict in South Sudan and four U.S. military service members were wounded.

 

Nearly a week of fighting threatens to drag the world's newest country into an ethnic civil war just two years after it won independence from Sudan with strong support from successive U.S. administrations.

 

The U.S. aircraft came under fire while approaching the evacuation site, the military's Africa Command said in a statement. "The aircraft diverted to an airfield outside the country and aborted the mission," it said.

 

Hundreds of people have been killed in the fighting that pits loyalists of President Salva Kiir, of the Dinka ethnic group, against those of his former vice president Riek Machar, a Nuer who was sacked in July and is accused by the government of trying to seize power.

 

Fighting that spread from the capital, Juba, has now reached vital oilfields and the government said a senior army commander had defected to Machar in the oil-producing Unity State.

And just to assure a condemning social response is generated, and the public mood against the South Sudan is sufficiently negative, the AP just reported that a UN helicopter in the region had been downed also following gunfire by local militant:

Two officials have told The Associated Press that a U.N. helicopter trying to evacuate peacekeepers and civilians was fired on and sustained significant damage on Friday in the same restive South Sudan state where a U.S. helicopter was hit Saturday.

 

Rob McKee of Warrior Security said the U.N. helicopter was hit by small arms fire and made an emergency landing while trying to evacuate personnel from a base in Yuai in Jonglei state. A second official who insisted on anonymity because the information hasn't been released said the helicopter was abandoned and remains unable to fly. No injuries were reported.

 

A U.N. spokesman didn't answer a phone call or email seeking comment.

 

U.S. aircraft were fired on Saturday in Bor, the capital of Jonglei. Four U.S. service members were wounded.

Of course, the question is why the US (and, laughably, French) scramble to get involved militarily in Africa now? The answer is easy: as we reported in June 2012, in the rush for Africa China has a multi-year head start in the colonization race. So what short cuts is a self-determined superpower to do to catch up - why find one pretext after another to send a military force and achieve through brute force what China has been able to attain through infrastructure and domestic investing over the past several years.

From June 2012:

"The Beijing Conference": See How China Quietly Took Over Africa

Back in 1885, to much fanfare, the General Act of the Berlin Conference launched the Scramble for Africa which saw the partition of the continent, formerly a loose aggregation of various tribes, into the countries that currently make up the southern continent, by the dominant superpowers (all of them European) of the day. Subsequently Africa was pillaged, plundered, and in most places, left for dead. The fact that a credit system reliant on petrodollars never managed to take hold only precipitated the "developed world" disappointment with Africa, no matter what various enlightened, humanitarian singer/writer/poet/visionaries claim otherwise. And so the continent languished. Until what we have dubbed as the "Beijing Conference" quietly took place, and to which only Goldman Sachs, which too has been quietly but very aggressively expanding in Africa, was invited. As the map below from Stratfor shows, ever since 2010, when China pledged over $100 billion to develop commercial projects in Africa, the continent has now become de facto Chinese territory. Because where the infrastructure spending has taken place, next follow strategic sovereign investments, and other modernization pathways, until gradually Africa is nothing but an annexed territory for Beijing, full to the brim with critical raw materials, resources and supplies. So while the "developed world" was and continues to deny the fact that it is broke, all the while having exactly zero money to invest in expansion, China is quietly taking over the world. Literally.

 

More from Stratfor:

In late July, Beijing hosted the 5th Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, during which China pledged up to $20 billion to African countries over the next three years. China has proposed or committed about $101 billion to commercial projects in Africa since 2010, some of which are under negotiation while others are currently under way. Together, construction and natural resource deals total approximately $90 billion, or about 90 percent of Chinese commercial activity in Africa since 2010. These figures could be even higher because of an additional $7.5 billion in unspecified commitments to South Africa and Zambia, likely intended for mining projects. Of the remaining $3 billion in Chinese commercial commitments to Africa, about $2.1 billion will be used on local manufacturing projects. While China has proposed $750 million for agriculture and general development aid and about $50 million to support small- and medium-sized business development in addition to the aforementioned projects, it has been criticized for the extractive nature of its relationship with many African countries, as well as the poor quality of some of its construction work. However, since many African countries lack the indigenous engineering capability to construct these large-scale projects or the capital to undertake them, African governments with limited resources welcome Chinese investments enthusiastically. These foreign investment projects are also a boon for Beijing, since China needs African resources to sustain its domestic economy, and the projects in Africa provide a destination for excess Chinese labor.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
jerry_theking_lawler's picture

Why are American soldiers in South Sudan?

markmotive's picture

These freedom fighters/rebels/enemy combatants can run circles around our billion dollar warplanes.

The Empire's strength is it's biggest weakness.

http://www.planbeconomics.com/2013/12/the-five-most-deadly-and-expensive...

knukles's picture

And now, for the proof statement.
A obscure YouTube clip, vehemently anti Muslim, racist and bigoted in nature made by an obscure Californian Tea party member and registered Libertarinan 33 years ago was cited by Vallerie Jarhead as proof positive of the necessity to invade the country and "kill lots and lots of brown children".
The move was extolled by Bill Gates as good for the planetary burden.
When informed of the news Hillbillary Crinton was quoted as saying "Oh goodie!"

mjcOH1's picture

Not our dog, not our fight.

Pull out the military.  
Cut off aid.
Let them kill each other or not as they see fit. 

Deo vindice's picture

"...over a few fabricated YouTube clops..."

You really have to be careful about those You Tube "clops".

They are dangerous.

SolarSystem1932's picture

I repeat, the data stream has been corrupted.

Exactly, what does the following mean?

"First, Reuters reports about a U.S. aircraft which was by gunfire in South Sudan:"

See, the NSA is f! with the verbs and nouns.

Do I need to clarify?

"..which was by gunfire.."

 

Which was WHAT by gunfire...

If this is my browser, somebody please let me know...

 

 

knukles's picture

Just think if it was in cursive.

Arius's picture

His hat reminds me of Deng when he first visited this country .... to think some people make a great living dreaming up this shit ....

Bangin7GramRocks's picture

Weekend Tyler, why hasn't there been a story about the NSA buying access to RSA encryption? $10 million bought access to everything. Anyone who believes that anything transmitted on the internet is safe from the NSA is just crazy.

Crawdaddy's picture

Never trust a man who doesn't own a hat with sweat stains.

Seer's picture

Still an amazing make-over, GW Bush. (Obamy's make-over didn't come with as many physical props)

Element's picture

 

 

"The Empire's strength is it's biggest weakness."

 

Q: What were the most prevalent weapons US and Allied forces faced in 1963?

A: The AK-47, the RPG7 and land mines.

Q: So what are the most prevalent weapons US and Allied forces face in 2013?

A: The AK-47, the RPG7 and IED land mines.

Q: Are these still extremely effective weapons, today, on the battlefield (by which I mean the urban environment)?

A: Yup

Q: So we need better weapons to counter them then?

A: Nope

Q: So I take it we always win?

A: Nope, we always lose.

Q: ... W.T.F. ?!!

A: Weapons are for making money not for winning wars.

 

 
"Mission Accomplished!"

IridiumRebel's picture

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

TeamDepends's picture

And I get on my knees and pray....

Seer's picture

One of the greatest songs ever!  Only later on in life did I really come to pick up on it...

Emergency Ward's picture

I had to think twice about that, then I got it (I think).  Good call.

Emergency Ward's picture

"Look, to help you combat terrorism, I'm gonna blah, blah, blah, drone-murder, no-fly zone, blah, blah, blah.....What, would one African-American lie to another African-American?!?"

Rusty Shorts's picture

 

How Environmentalism Is Used to Create War, Destabilization, Genocide

This modus operandi was/is essential to keep continents like Africa and South America in a continual state of weakness, conflict and destabilization. This model is now slowly coming to Europe and North America, as these territories fall into economic depression, destitution, and general human and social degradation.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5QgSaBgXXY

Seer's picture

"Environmentalism" was originally coined by Murray Bookchin.  Bookchin later came to regret this and turned against it (realizing that it was a great mechanism for those in power to set aside the environment for protection for future exploitation- he coined "social ecology").  Love him or hate him, Bookchin's views on this are dead-on, and, all the "deniers" out there actually argue alongside Bookchin's concerns over it being more about harnessing the control over exploitation (though with the "deniers" it's more about them being cut out of the exploitation market- cognative dissonace needs to be practiced in order to get by the FACT [look over at China] that humans are fucking up their nests).

Just because there are folks profiting from something (folks that might be on the other side of the Party Pussy coin) that does not mean that that something is, in its essence, incorrect/bogus/scam.  Dynamite is a good thing, yet bad folks (power trippers) get ahold of it and kill people: the fact that those bad guys are killing people with it doesn't mean that dynamite was based upon this.

Blazed's picture

@ hedgeless_horseman,

What was that......Kimbo Slice meets Obongo Vice?

BanksterSlayer's picture

Gaddafi spinning in his grave.

 

South Sudan President Meets With Obama

Sept 21, 2011

 

http://www.voanews.com/content/south-sudan-president-meets-with-obama-13...

photo op with President Salva Kiir
thunderchief's picture

My guess is it was a C-17, from Charlsten SC.  There were a few of them parked in Entebbe, Uganda the past few days, and probably going to Juba!

markmotive's picture

2 attacks. Some sources report 20+ dead...but I guess only UN soldiers make the MSM

http://www.planbeconomics.com/2013/12/second-attack-on-un-in-south-sudan...

Seer's picture

First I'd heard was US soldiers...  I suppose that the lenses one is wearing makes the difference with how one sees things...

BTW - I could give a fluying fuck about any of this.  Everyone involved signed on to it.  And, again, the US ought not be fucking around outside of its borders.

ArrestBobRubin's picture

It's a National Security thing, we are critically low on sand

savagegoose's picture

THE KEY TO THE MAP IS ALL FUCKED UP,  HAS Cu AS IRON OR SOME SUCH

Seer's picture

http://www.africom.mil/

ABOUT THE COMMAND

United States Africa Command, (U.S. AFRICOM) is one of six of the U.S. Defense Department's geographic combatant commands and is responsible to the Secretary of Defense for military relations with African nations, the African Union, and African regional security organizations. A full-spectrum combatant command, U.S. AFRICOM is responsible for all U.S. Department of Defense operations, exercises, and security cooperation on the African continent, its island nations, and surrounding waters. AFRICOM began initial operations on Oct. 1, 2007, and officially became an independent command on Oct. 1, 2008.

TRANSLATION: We realized that there's a lot of oil there so we decided it, um, the people needed to be protected from it.

Canadian Dirtlump's picture

I am a v.p. of an oil and gas company.  One of our supervisors just came back to us after a stint in Angola. He remarked how many Chinese people he saw while there. That is your answer. 

q99x2's picture

Didn't know the United Nations had a helicopter. Thought it was a nice caring planning committee.

ZH Snob's picture

if you want to attack the US, great, get in line, but attack the UN?  these guys obviously have no respect for their overlords.

Tsukato's picture

What I don't understand is this: the economy's in shambles, too many unemployed youth in Europe and USA, china's getting into everything, need to have a big war for all the benefits, without all the risks of engaging nuclear powers, need to control more resources, and serve the chinkies a little humble pie, and what is the west doing? Fucking nothing smart. It's time to blitzkrieg Africa and Latin America!

stormsailor's picture

ok, now lets blow some shit up.  10 bucks says the missiles that shot them down were from the united states through libya, and now to militant african muslims.

Shad_ow's picture

Actually if I was President I would blow the place that attacked our men right off the map every last time it happened.  Bet it would stop happening.  The problem then would be "how would our government overlords keep us terrieid of terrorism?"  Think of all the trillions that would save.

"Speak quietly but carry a big stick."

TBT or not TBT's picture

And beat anyone who looks at you funny to a pulp, publically.

Bangin7GramRocks's picture

So thousands of innocents die because of a few militants? What a vicious, vulgar people we have become. But hey, as long as we keep the Christ in Christmas.

Bangin7GramRocks's picture

So thousands of innocents die because of a few militants? What a vicious, vulgar people we have become. But hey, as long as we keep the Christ in Christmas.

l8apex's picture

Another internet tough guy.  So impressive.  But not just tough, I'm sure you're also smarter than average, and any bomb you would send would only injure/maim/disfigure/dishearten combatants.  Screw anybody else who might just be in the area.  After all, they're not 'mericuns.

How about we just stay the fuck out of other countries and their business?  

Mr Pink's picture

Shad ow , the Yahoo comment section is that way ------>

Seer's picture

Shh!  You're not supposed to give away the plot! (there's lots of money yet to be made on the ticket sales!)

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

"Fighting that spread from the capital, Juba, has now reached vital oilfields and the government said a senior army commander had defected to Machar in the oil-producing Unity State."

If it were just sand or jungle the USA would not have any aircraft or personnel within 300 miles.

CrashisOptimistic's picture

Ahem.  CiO's rule #1:

View all things thru the prism of oil and you will understand all things.

Seer's picture

As I say: ALL WARS ARE ABOUT RESOURCES.

When you limit it to oil you pull out all the "peak oil deniers."

dunce's picture

If you are right and you likely are , then we are screwed because China has locked up most of the resources. there is no way we are going to war with china over this. This may be all for the best because the resources will be put on the world market and the Chinese will not tolerate mnokey shines.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Kosovo has no sand or jungle and we've been there since Clinton I. Vietnam was kinda jungly, in the Hollywood depictions I've seen.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Afghanistan comes across more kinda just dusty, ramshackle, and mountainous.

formadesika3's picture

Vietnam was a tar baby, Kosovo a token and Afghanistan is a CIA profit center.