December 17, 2006
The World With a Weak America
It's the holiday season and if you want cheerful reading I'd suggest that you skip this post. It contains pessimism and wringing of hands.
I see the commercials on TV for savedarfur.org and I understand that it is bad. I understand, furthermore, that the world said "never again." In spite of words, the worst seems to be happening.
The web page in question offers a chance to sign a petition to President Bush. It highlights the severity of the situation and suggests that the president:
* Strengthen the understaffed and overwhelmed African Union peacekeeping force already in Darfur.
* Push for the deployment of a strong UN peacekeeping force.
* Increase humanitarian aid and ensure access for aid delivery.
* Establish a no-fly zone.
Yesterday in TCS, Peter Pham and Michael I. Krauss suggest that it would not be hard to make a difference in Darfur.
Ideally, the UN Security Council, noting the impact on Chad that the Darfur crisis has already had, would invoke its Chapter VII authority to deploy international peacekeepers without Khartoum's leave—rescuing the world body's tattered credibility in the process. Failing that, a "coalition of the willing" or one courageous nation should speak up for our common humanity in what is apparently the only language Omar al-Bashir and his colleagues understand, that of force. Given the primitive nature of the Sudan regime's military forces, it would not require much to degrade its genocidal capacity at minimal risk through an escalating campaign aimed at airfields, military bases, armaments factories, and ultimately the ports through which it ships its only significant foreign exchange earner, oil. Such steps may violate Sudan's notional national sovereignty, and would therefore offend "experts" wedded to state stability—even when it means accommodating undeniably evil regimes—at all costs. But what is that in contrast to the blazing firestorm of genocide?
Pham and Krauss are serious people and I have no doubt that the forces behind the TV commercials are well intentioned. Yet I have no doubt that most of the people demanding action in Darfur strenuously oppose the war in Iraq.
I have no polling data or empirical proof. But I live in Boulder County. Pray-ins for Tibet and a candlelight vigil for Darfur will find a home in the People's Republic. But actually doing anything that will effectively alleviate human suffering, such as landing US Marines, is viewed skeptically. The only way to effect change in Darfur is to land ground troops. Why is it okay to invade a Muslim nation in Africa that exports oil but not okay to use the military in Iraq?
Who thinks it would be any different? Suicide bombers would pick off Coalition troops a few at a time until the US had an election and the troops would be brought home. I think the ruling thugs in Sudan understand this, even if the dot-org folks do not.
An emailer suggested that I "sounded like a redneck" when I came down harshly on the Fabulous Minneapolis Flying Imam Brothers. I'll double down here: This is the world you get when you let Cindy Sheehan and Rep. Murtha make policy. The Sudanese know we will not try to spread human rights and freedom outside of Iraq. They can act with impunity. Read the polls.
A stronger America would be a credible force against these thugs. Sadly, when much of America thinks that we are the problem, evil can have its day. I for one would be all for rolling the Marines into Sudan (Osama Bin Laden's long time base). But I wish the petition signers (don't you just feel great when you sign an internet petition? Saving the world on click at a time) I wish the petition signers would be honest and realize that only the United States could or would fix this and that only a full scale military presence would do it.