Fighting Fire With Fire

“In the midst of peace, war is looked on as an eventuality too distant to merit consideration” – Vegetius.

S - 400 All Altitude Missiles (Russian). Making the skies safe for locals. Picture by Open Source INTelligence.

by Kudakwashe Kanhutu 

[Balancing, since pleas to common sense are bound to fail...] 

The insights of the above Vegetius quote are not lost to the African National Congress Youth League. Thus, Julius Malema was right to opine that Botswana presents an insidious threat to stability in the SADC region if it allows foreign powers to have bases there. We all saw the stupidity of Laurent Gbagbo who tried to talk about sovereignty when French troops already had bases in Ivory Coast; the same troops who put Gbagbo in power then toppled him. The AU Charter should not allow member states to have foreign military bases on their territory,[1] but of course the AU Charter is a script for a stand-up comedy routine: Djibouti, Ivory Coast and Uganda, to name a few, already house AFRICOM structures of some sort. I also thought it unfortunate that President Zuma would come down on Julius Malema for saying “regime change,” a term that has never got anyone in trouble as it is a common term among leaders in the West, but I digress. If we agree that the AU Charter is: (1) a worthless rag and, (2) that the traditional notion of sovereignty anyway would conflict with any Charter article prohibiting inviting foreign forces – and thus allows any country to have military to military cooperation with any power to its heart’s content – then the way to counter threats posed by foreign forces in neighbouring countries is an imperfect but age old one. 

A First Sight of the Problem: 

When I was in Pretoria last year at a meeting with United States policymakers, one of the questions that was raised by them was how can the United States mend fences with the ANC? You see, the United States was the chief backer of South Africa’s apartheid system (much in the same way they back Israel today, common sense and world opinion be damned!). Hell, President Nelson Mandela was still listed as a terrorist in the United States as late as 28 June 2008. Yes – 28 June 2008. I opined four clear steps that could ameliorate the trust deficit that thus exists between the United States and African states. Among my steps was a plea for the U.S and her proxies to respect the AU/SADC position on African issues. Looking back, I now think that the U.S delegates’ question was a rhetorical question; my time would have been better spent had I chosen to speak to the many rocks that speck the South African landscape. Their further responses in the discussion betrayed what I have now come to immediately recognise as an entrenched attitude of listening politely then completely ignoring AU/SADC wishes. 

Well, if people show such disdain towards a magnanimous and forgiving people as the United States has done to SADC, some posture has to be taken. From the first day I understood the full history of colonialism and apartheid, I have always said it is the United States which should be begging to have a relationship with SADC and not the other way round. SADC did not wrong the US and her proxies; it was the U.S and her proxies that brought apartheid and colonialism to our shores and perpetuated it. Why then are the African states on all fours to be recognised by the former coloniser? It is a big question with many answers, such as; on the one hand you have idiocy and sycophancy in the same country (read Gbagbo and Quattara respectively), while on the other hand you have inexplicable stances such as that of Botswana under Ian Khama; name the man or woman who can explain Botswana’s counter productive agitation towards other SADC states. 

But the answer I think is significant as to why African states still court the former oppressor is that there is a sparseness of credible alternatives. To illustrate my point I will use Zimbabwe as my example from here on. We have all heard of Zimbabwe’s Look - East policy, much good has that done; China could not even inject the $10 bn that was needed to keep the Zimbabwean economy afloat in 2008. Also despite the exaggerated cries of a ‘yellow peril’ by the West, I too have misgivings about the conduct of Chinese investors towards Africans. Thus I argue a better variant. I argue that in China, we are courting the wrong giant, on the wrong field; for the next six years we should court President Putin’s Russia in all fields. China has its uses but it walks too softly. Russia on the other hand, has sharply pronounced an ambition to see the basic building blocks of international law preserved. It is Russia that has said that natural resources should remain an issue of national sovereignty where other greedy nations are planning an onslaught against this long standing principle of international law.[2] It is Russia which has been adamant that non intervention in a state’s domestic affairs should be upheld, otherwise all hell breaks loose. Russia too went through the catastrophic economic quandary, which the United States is so wary of; and survived without having to plunder foreign lands. Russia has never been a colonial power in Southern Africa or have they enslaved our people, or sponsored apartheid here in any form. Russia under President Putin is a good country to have relations with in all fields. Mind you, how else can we solve the Botswana problem? 

Every Problem Has A Solution: 

We all know from childhood the story where the hare challenged the elephant to a tug-of-war on the same day he challenged the hippopotamus. The hare’s plan was to pit these two giants against each other for his amusement, and he did. Without any culpability on our part, we find ourselves in a near similar situation today. The slight difference is that, it is the hippopotamus that has been challenging us (a minnow) to a tug-of-war for the past 12 years, while the elephant, gentle giant that he is, has been indifferent. I am not going to continue along the path of parables and fable-speak for long, for the point I am making is a practical point with real world consequences. Thus, let’s forthwith assign terms; Zimbabwe is the hare, The United States of America and its underlings, Britain, France and Germany represent the hippopotamus, while China or Russia (under President Putin) is our gentle giant; the elephant. We just may now have our window of opportunity to accept the hippopotamus’ long standing challenge to a tug-of-war, and like the hare in our fable; we must bring the elephant to this tug-of-war! 

The Problem Clearly Defined: 

President Putin comes to power at a crucial time, when the Western countries are mistakenly thinking that sufficient time has passed for the pain of colonialism to be now forgotten. Maybe, considering Zimbabwe got rid of the colonial yoke in 1980, they figure 32 years is long enough. Maybe they reckon since South Africa got rid of apartheid in 1994, sufficient time has passed. Maybe they are just desperate. I really don’t know how they calculated this, but I know they have decided that it is now time to repackage the colonialist project in the cloak of humanitarian intervention. President Mbeki quotes open discussions in Whitehall relating to renewed interest in accessing Africa’s resources by hook or crook.[3] In this new issue, Western countries actually stalk unrest in the country they will later intervene in for “humanitarian reasons.” Should the legitimate government of that country try to enforce order, this will be taken up by the Western media as the beginning of massacres and genocides that will require intervention by the “international community.” Intervention entails change of regime and the installing of a puppet regime that is friendly to the intervening countries. The puppet government’s end of the deal is to ensure access to resources and markets for the Western block in exchange for international legitimacy. How is this not colonialism? It is also quite a pathetic and transparent ploy, but does not a drowning man grasp at straws? 

President Putin reckons that the economic problems in the West today are forcing these countries to be wantonly aggressive in their search for a solution to their economic woes.[4] I believe him. Since I have already said that Russia has never been a colonial power in Southern Africa, President Putin has the moral ground to speak from. Unlike the United States which, may I remind you, had President Nelson Mandela listed as a terrorist as late as 28 June 2008.[5] 

Further Context: 

There is a palpable suspicion in academic circles that we have now entered the Third Cold War era. Relations between Russia and the West are frayed due to the United States and her proxies’ aggression in building a European Ballistic Missile Defence Shield. What this missile shield will do is take away the mutual vulnerability that has thus far ensured a stable ‘balance of terror’ between the U.S and Russia. This is the source of the major clashes between the two superpowers. Although the claim is that the shield is targeting rogue states, note that the shield will not distinguish whether missiles are from rogue states or from Russia. In any case is not a rogue state any state that the United States disagrees with at the time? The other obvious disagreements such as Russia’s position of largely respecting the building blocks of international law while the United States prefers what is expedient for the moment, are just symptoms not the disease. The bottom-line is that the United States is desperate to maintain its world hegemony against re-emerging and emerging new powers. Notice how the U.S refused to endorse the nuclear fuel exchange deal that Brazil and Turkey had brokered for Iran, not because the deal was flawed but because it had not been a U.S initiative. Observe also what has been called a policy of encircling China, military bases and diplomatic efforts placed to outmanoeuvre China on the whole globe. The hope for the U.S is to be able to dictate the law, not just to small countries but to Russia and China as well, once the United States and its proxies are invulnerable to long range missiles. President Putin has reacted to this disguised aggression by saying Russia should build a rival missile defence shield or build weapons that will ignore the missile defence shield. But I digress again, so I will not dwell much on the finer points of his solution, only to point out that he is conceiving the situation too narrowly. 

The Balance: 

In his article ostracising this disguised Western aggression; President Putin is blind to the fact that he is making the mistake of relying on the narrow solution of nuclear weapons as if Russia is still the basket case of the 90s. He is still holding on to the Russian position of being very inward looking, when a well-managed outward looking policy could win Russia useful and committed global allies without breaking her Central Bank. Russia should now start thinking in terms of exporting Russian culture, ideas, art and expertise to shore up her soft power. For instance, why should Zimbabwe recognise South Ossetia if not for the reason that her ally Russia thinks it is a legitimate thing to do? If not for the reason that Zimbabwe is obliged to stand shoulder to shoulder with her ally, Russia. 

Closely related to the above is this; the major reason why it took the West just under a month to attack Colonel Gaddafi and over 1 year to even contemplate attacking Syria despite the fact that both countries were on a similar trajectory, is because Russia has assets in Syria. These assets, should they have been damaged in a West led attack, would lead to a confrontation between Russia and the United States: game, set and match if the tennis phrase can ever be used aptly in the world of high politics. NATO furthermore cannot contemplate entering Syria because this is a contested airspace, Russian made air defence missiles induce much NATO apprehensiveness.[6] 

So, if Russia can be coaxed into looking beyond the Mediterranean, Zimbabwe is within her rights to invite military to military cooperation with Russia. Why should Zimbabwe suffer the consternation of being deprived of spares to such a backward fighter jet as the BAE Hawker Hunter when Zimbabwe could be flying Sukhoi - 35s? Why should Zimbabwe feel vulnerable to air attacks when her cities can be defended by an Air Defence Brigade wielding S – 300/400 missiles. The fact of the matter is that Russia is a leader in military technologies and many other fields, if she chooses to engage the world, countries wanting to preserve their sovereignty would do well to side with the Russia of President Putin’s vision. The West should not feel too aggrieved by this posture, the message to them would be a very friendly message; should they return to a scrupulous observation of the basic building blocks of international relations; should they return to a respect for sovereignty, honest partnerships and paying the going rate for resources, there is no reason why some limited cooperation cannot still be envisaged. 

Kudakwashe Kanhutu 
BA (Hons) Conflict, Peace & Security. University of Kent, Canterbury.

School of Politics and International Relations. 

MSc Defence, Development & Diplomacy. Durham University.

Durham Global Security Institute (DGSi). 

Prospective PhD Candidate. Graduate Institute, Geneva.

Thesis: “The State and Human Security in Zimbabwe.” 

 +447721474274 

Notes:

[1] Owing to the experiences with colonialism and apartheid, this should be a founding principle of the Charter.

[2] President Putin Being Strong: National Security Guarantees for Russia, http://rt.com/politics/official-word/strong-putin-military-russia-711/ (accessed 12/04/2012).


[3] President Mbeki Dullah Omar Eighth Memorial Lecture, http://www.unisa.ac.za/contents/colleges/docs/mbeki-speech%20at%20UWC%20(2).pdf (accessed 12/04/2012)

[4] President Putin Being Strong: National Security Guarantees for Russia, http://rt.com/politics/official-word/strong-putin-military-russia-711/ (accessed 12/04/2012).

[5] BBC, Mandela Taken Off U.S Terror List, 01 July 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7484517.stm (accessed 12/04/2012).

[6] CBS News, US General: Syrian Air Defence May Be Problem, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57391574/u.s-general-syrian-air-defense-may-be-problem/ (accessed 12/04/2012). Also see Senator John Mcain Interview on France 24, 12/04/12 where he says if the US cannot take out Syria’s Russian air defences then the taxpayers should question why the US government is taking their taxes.

Soldier Without A Country

From Wikileaks we learn that Botswana ran to the United States in 2008/9 asking for military assistance, fearing Zimbabwe was about to launch a massive invasion. Knowing the Zimbabwe Defence Forces' mentality, had they chosen to attack Botswana, it would have been a surgical strike which, only God in high heaven, or the ZDF itself could prevent.

Zimbabwean Special Forces from 1 Commando Regiment.

by Kudakwashe Kanhutu 

“The soldier often regards the man of politics as unreliable, inconstant and greedy for the limelight. Bred on imperatives, the military temperament is astonished by the number of pretences in which the statesman has to indulge. The terrible simplicities of war contrast strongly to the devious methods demanded by the art of government. The impassioned twists and turns, the dominant concern with the effect to be produced, the appearance of weighing others in terms not of their merit but of their influence – all inevitable characteristics in the civilian whose authority rests upon the popular will – cannot but worry the professional soldier habituated as he is to a life of hard duties, self effacement, and respect for services rendered” - Charles de Gaulle 1890 -1970 

My name is Kudakwashe Kanhutu, Lieutenant Colonel Kudakwashe Kanhutu, Commanding Officer, 1 Commando Regiment; the foremost unit of the Special Forces in the Zimbabwe Defence Forces. My life has been duty bound from the very start, of pride in family possessions, placing others’ lives before my own and holding as inviolable the defence of our territory. Starting with the defending of the family livestock and maize plot from wild animals as a child, to protecting family members in playground fights at school. Destiny, it would seem, had pre-programmed my disposition. I do not know what the exact date is, but I am writing this from the cold hardness of a Botswana Military Prison cell, it is at least 10 years since my capture on 11 February 2009, but for the magnitude of the events I am about to recount to take root in your mind, let me start from the very beginning. 

I have never placed much emphasis on riches, in fact, I have what borders on disdain for worldly riches as they distract from the duty of service to the Nation. This is manifest, from the onset, in my decision not to take sole ownership of my parents’ property and livestock, as was my right as eldest son when my parents passed away while I was only 15. Choosing instead communal ownership where a greedy disposition would have assumed sole ownership and demanded that everyone else be subservient to that decision. There was no shortage of acts of bravery in my childhood. My family’s settling in the Zambezi Valley at the end of Liberation Struggle meant that we had to compete for living space with wildlife such as Lions, Leopards, Elephants and - the deadliest of them all - the Black Mamba. I have lost count of the number of times when I had to come to the aid, with other boys, of a homestead that had to fend off these predators. Many times these predators would attack people, but yet I find myself thinking, in retrospect, that none of these predators were as deadly as the politician, with his fickleness, his double dealings, conniving, scheming and deception. 

Soldiers are a breed apart, especially in my experience those of 1 Commando Regiment. Anyone who is willing to die for his country without question qualifies for that distinction. Politicians on the other hand concern themselves with ‘pulling strings’ when conscription is necessary, so that their sons and their friends’ sons do not end up serving in the military. For their own children, service in the military is to be avoided like the plague. It is ironic that people who depend that much on the military for their survival should hold it in such poor regard. 

My joining of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces was the most natural thing. After University I could have applied directly to the Zimbabwe Military Academy, to start life of service as an Officer but instead I went via the basic entry route; General Duty Infantry. The aspersion I held then was that in choosing to become an officer from the onset, I could never really be a soldier. I feared that the stratification of our society was also mirrored in the military by division between Officers and their men; where Officers would be living a life of privilege and enjoying trappings of wealth far removed from the asceticism that is a prerequisite for an honourable military life. I was pleasantly surprised to find this to be contrary to the truth. As soon as I had finished my basic infantry training I was transferred to the Zimbabwe Military Academy on merit, where I soon found out that my Officer training was doubly harder and more demanding than the one at Infantry School. The reasoning at ZMA was that as Officers we can only lead men into battle if we are at least equals with the best man in our units in all the physical requirements of our mission: we lead from the front. 

Excellence at training saw me transferred to 1 Commando Regiment. Subsequent combat operations saw my meteoric rise to Commanding Officer of the same unit, notably the last minute defence of Kinshasa from Ugandan and Rwandan troops; an operation executed with great precision but whose details I will neglect in this account for brevity’s sake. I will only defend our deployment to the Democratic Republic of Congo in its context as a humanitarian effort to give civilians of that country a moment of peace as civilians everywhere deserve. The DRC had continually never known peace with various foreign governments, including America, implicated in the instability. At the time of my DRC tour of duty, I was not yet privy to operational decision making, but I understood the necessity of the mission in the humanitarian context as opposed to the aspersions cast out by the media. 

My life, therefore, was a life dedicated to serving Zimbabwe to the exclusion of all else. In this sort of setting, where you are driven by the honour within you, the most common mistake is that you will think everyone in the Country to harbour the same feeling, which is a fatal mistake. You will essentially have no prejudices or suspect that some are driven by greed. 

The background to my head on collision with the politicians of Zimbabwe, the subject of this account, is indeed the economic quandary and political stalemate the Country was in. Politicians’ arguments, personality clashes and all else that played out needlessly. Each trying to out-do the other in showing who could damage the Country the most if he was not at the helm. Each flexing political muscles, the one ordering his supporters to slash and burn, and, the other - not to be outdone - running to the International Community and demanding they cut credit lines to Zimbabwe. The only one suffering being the ordinary man. In this vein, I find the best argument for rule by the military in developing infant democracies as opposed to the oversight of the military by civilians that is prevalent in the come-of-age democracies. The true military man gets his inspiration from the duty to protect the weak from exploitation, and, his strength is derived from the honour instilled in him by an inviolable military code. The true military man has no need for exploitative deception. 

Politicians on the other hand are ungrateful parasites, every four to five years they abandon their expensive suits, they dress down and descend on the ordinary people like vultures. They pretend to identify with the ordinary man’s plight, they lie, how they lie? They invoke fictitious backgrounds of trial by fire, and, because the ordinary man is not wise, this deception takes root and the tragedy is that it is repeated regularly and, still, ordinary people are none the wiser. All this is done to legitimate the group of politicians whose turn it is to plunder the Country’s resources. The anomaly of politicians having oversight over the military then ensures that the military is then obliged to be a blunt tool in the hands of politicians, subject to abuse. 

All the problems we were having in the Country, the economic meltdown, the political hate, the closure of hospitals and every other malady, were manifestations of dishonourable people having control over things they should not have control over. Of course because of the subservience to the Zimbabwe Constitution of the institution that was my station of contribution to the good of the nation, I found myself unable to initiate a course that I am now able to argue from solitary confinement in a Botswana Military Prison. How did this come about? 

Again the politicians came to us, with substantial proof that Botswana was training disaffected Zimbabweans to act as insurgents against the Zimbabwe government. This was not made up as some quarters argued at the time, sixteen men from my unit had actually joined these groups and so substantiated the existence of these acts of aggression. In a serious breach of protocol Botswana had also amassed troops on the border for manoeuvres. These manoeuvres had been observed by the Air Force of Zimbabwe’s reconnaissance planes. 

The Botswana Defence Forces had foolishly conducted these actions as a back-up to the foolish rhetoric their Commander-in-Chief and President was spouting at regional meetings. Whether he wanted to immortalise himself in the history books or driven by a heartfelt cause I do not know but, either way, he had chosen the wrong vehicle for these hands. Of course, when the politicians came to us they wanted the army to invade Botswana and attack the camps where the insurgents were being given training, reminiscent of their experiences with Rhodesian Armed Forces. Here, as so often happens, even to the most stringently opposed dictates, the military’s duty to maintain peace and stability coincided with the politicians’ need to preserve and perpetuate themselves. As the military our duty to maintain peace and order makes us very circumspect. It is necessary to have absolute peace in the Country, once that has been breached, we lose control and the outcome becomes very fluid, with never before known players surfacing with invariably ridiculous agendas to promote. 

The politicians were quoting their precious books of International Law and were desirous that we should set an example that will be remembered into eternity, or even occupy Botswana indefinitely. Such was their dexterity with empty words that, this was going to be “our War on Terror”. I, personally, do not like wars of conquest because they stretch the military and are unwinnable as the United States’ campaigns in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan holds testimony. Furthermore, you have to take on duties of civil government like policing, a mammoth task among hostile foreigners. Personally I prefer defensive wars. I was also averse, in discussions with HQ, to attacks on fellow Zimbabweans without warning and reasoned that the guilty party was the most powerful man in Botswana. It was he who should come to answer questions on behalf of the Zimbabweans he had made criminals out of by providing military training to. After all, it was he who was most vocal and, he who was displaying all that great bravado. My dearest wish is that people who endanger lives while hiding behind political office should be made to answer questions on their actions away from their great offices. It is a simple psychological exercise. 

We also absolutely had to make a response because non action was dangerous in that it would embolden our detractor and award him allies who otherwise were not convinced. So to avert the danger of Botswana galvanizing countries on our borders into a coalition which would potentially set the whole Southern Africa region on fire, we needed something unheard of in war; the one single and instantaneous blow that would win the war. From our standpoint, the military manoeuvres on our border by the Botswana Defence Forces was an act of aggression. 

Thus I found myself accompanied by the Service Chiefs, outlining to the politicians, the alterations I had made to their instruction and detailing the form the mission would now take. I emphasized that the goal would still be the same but practicalities demanded that we follow a surprise commando raid with one objective; a solitary blow. There were great arguments from the politicians who sensed that there would not be great big flashes, jets screaming overhead and, death and destruction to captivate the world media and award them their interviews with CNN. I have to emphasize, away from post factor rationalisations, Botswana indeed posed a threat to the region through their undiplomatic and irresponsible action. Having established this, the mission was an absolute necessity. 

Zimbabwe Defence Forces Helicopters flying over a Southern African city.

The mission would in essence be carried out by 200 men from 1 Commando Regiment with me in the lead, 216 including the 16 who had already been in Botswana in the insurgents training camps, conducting various intelligence works. If that number seems low, that is because if the mission was executed with great secrecy, we would encounter negligible numbers to oppose us. Also, in terms of capabilities, the Botswana Defence Forces are essentially a bow and arrow army, in their whole existence they are not that much better than their civilians because they have never seen active combat anywhere. Conversely I was taking in veterans of the Mozambican, Somali and DRC wars. Support would ensure from the 7th Squadron of the Air Force of Zimbabwe. All military bases in the South West of the Country would be on high combat alert for a defensive war should the Botswana Army choose to cross into Zimbabwe. We would draw Botswana into an invasion, something they would never do especially with their Commander-in-Chief awaiting trial at Chikurubi Maximum Security Prison. 

Yes, at 2300hrs on February 10 2009, I was the greatest servant of the Zimbabwean Nation, poised to send a message to our neighbours that interference of a military nature in our domestic affairs would have their heads of state punished in a Zimbabwean Court of Law. On February 10 2009, at 2300hrs, I was standing by to rewrite the statute books of international relations. My men were standing by to bring Botswana to a standstill, telecommunications, the airport, Radio and TV stations were within fifteen minutes of my men’s control. Five 1 Commando Regiment Helicopters were standing by just fifteen minutes from Gaborone, to airlift ourselves and "Cargo One" back to Harare, having evaded Botswana radar earlier. The rest of the team would exfiltrate back to Plumtree on commandeered vehicles. 

At 2330hrs on the same day, the politicians in my country who had been at each other’s throat all along finally signed on to a Government of National Unity, of course the actual ceremony was done in the day time the following day for the sake of posterity. On reflection this was an agreement to share in the plunder of the Country’s resources. All the same, part of the agreement was to put all the cards on the table, and the 1 Commando Operation so necessary to the stability of the Country was one of the cards to be put on the table. Such that by 0001hrs on 11 February 2009, I was a criminal and adventurer, disowned by the politicians in my Country. A military operation that could have only worked because it was shrouded in secrecy, a precise mission to get into Botswana and arrest the Head of State without great bloodshed was thus compromised. Against the 5000 or so men the Botswana Defence Forces could master when warned in advance my men stood no chance. The numbers advantage was too overwhelming, unsuspecting of our presence we could have been superior to the Botswana Army units we would come across in the execution of the mission. Every single detail of the mission was relayed to Botswana by our great politicians and the Botswana Defence Forces have never had a greater day in their whole existence. I ordered that the men who were manning the outer ring of the operational zone exfiltrate back to Zimbabwe. Still, this left 60 Commandos in the inner ring which comprised the units that were to take charge of the telecommunications and the actual arrest of the Head of State. 60 soldiers sacrificed because the politicians had decided it is better to share the loot, after all... 

I used to be Zimbabwean, all those years ago when my heart used to beat with pride at the sight of a Zimbabwean flag fluttering in the wind. All those years ago when I used to stand to attention when the National Anthem was playing, when I would become agitated if I saw anyone, man or child, spell Zimbabwe without a capital Z. I used to be the most Zimbabwean of all Zimbabweans, all those years ago when I could spend hours doing nothing but think of ways to defend the nation from all enemies, foreign or domestic. I used to have a Country, but what happens when the fickleness of politicians overrides the sense of duty inculcated in a soldier’s fabric?