My concern with this pillorying of Mbeki, rather, is that it may mask laziness in our national reflections on Zimbabwe and what SA should do. I am struck by the poverty of analysis in our reflections on Zimbabwe. Commentators such as Christopher Hitchens have avoided the fundamental issues, offering instead vague unsubstantiated speculation on why Mugabe behaves the way he does.
Others, mainly South African academics and journalists, have preferred to turn their attention to Mbeki, mocking his appeasement of Mugabe and describing it as a national humiliation. But none of this analysis has offered a realistic alternative to Mbeki's strategy.....
Authoritarian leaders, especially wily ones such as Mugabe, can delay their departure for years, with devastating consequences for their country. Remember Sani Abacha, who not only delayed Nigeria's democratisation, but also killed many activists, citizens and leaders before his own death from a sudden heart attack?
How, then, can SA assist in getting rid of Mugabe? Four very different strategies have been proposed by various stakeholders. The most outlandish has been the suggestion SA should consider invading Zimbabwe, preferably in partnership with the Southern African Development Community (SADC).
The problem with this strategy is obvious. It assumes SA is militarily much stronger than Zimbabwe. But many military observers would contest this, suggesting that the South African military is too ill-prepared to undertake such a daunting mission....
you get the idea... this bozo is crying little weak South Africa is helpless, so stop picking on Mbeki.
But actually, why not invade?
Actually, it didn't take a lot of Tanzanian troops to overthrow Idi Amin...because like most dicator's bullies, these "veterans" are used to pushing around unarmed farmers...even those who worked as "peacekeepers" in Central Africa rarely fought a real soldier.
And if South Africa no longer has any soldiers, then shame on them...they used to have the best Army in Africa.