I know that there has been some back and forth in the comments section over Darfur, so I wanted to address the relevance of the current Darfur conflict to the war on terror.
First, Sudan is important because because Bin Laden says it’s important:
The speaker also criticised Western involvement in the troubled Darfur region of Sudan, saying it was part of the “crusades against Islam” and called for militants to journey there to join the fight.
“I call on mujahideen and their supporters, especially in Sudan and the Arab peninsula, to prepare for long war again the crusader plunderers in Western Sudan,”
Sudan, and its Darfur region, are teetering on the definition of “failed states.” In the modern world, failed states can be just as dangerous as rouge ones, due to the fact that they can serve as incubators for well funded terror operations. Our strategy in the GWOT needs to be one of area denial. Everywhere terror groups begin to establish centers of gravity, we need to attack them, kill them, and break their stuff. If they want to move away from Iraq, fine, we’ll follow them and keep killing them until they stop trying to kill us.
Next, genocides need to be stopped, wherever they occur, period. Darfur, it seems is now becoming a celebrity cause, with folks like Peacemaker star George Clooney now jumping on the “Free Darfur” bandwagon. Mark Steyn comments:
Clooney is now demanding a “stronger multinational force to protect the civilians of Darfur”.
Agreed. So let’s get on to the details. If by “multinational” Clooney means a military intervention authorised by the UN, then he’s a poseur and a fraud, and we should pay him no further heed. Meaningful UN action is never gonna happen. Sudan has at least two Security Council vetoes in its pocket: China gets 6 per cent of its oil from the country, while Russia has less obviously commercial reasons and more of a general philosophical belief in the right of sovereign states to butcher their own.
So forget a legal intervention authorised by the UN. If by “multinational” Clooney means military participation by the Sudanese regime’s co-religionists, then dream on. The Arab League, as is its wont when one of its bloodier members gets a bad press, has circled the camels and chosen to confer its Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on Khartoum by holding its most recent summit there.
So who, in the end, does “multinational action” boil down to? The same small group of nations responsible for almost any meaningful global action, from Sierra Leone to Iraq to Afghanistan to the tsunami-devastated Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia and on to East Timor and the Solomon Islands. The same core of English-speaking countries, technically multinational but distressingly unicultural and unilingual and indeed, given that most of them share the same head of state, uniregal. The US, Britain, Australia and Canada (back in the game in Afghanistan) certainly attract other partners, from the gallant Poles to the Kingdom of Tonga.
But, whatever international law has to say on the subject, the only effective intervention around the world comes from ad hoc coalitions of the willing led by the doughty musketeers of the Anglosphere. Right now who’s on the ground dragging the reluctant Sudanese through their negotiations with the African Union? America’s Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick and Britain’s International Development Secretary Hilary Benn. Sorry, George, that’s as “multinational” as it’s gonna get.
Here’s what I think the take-away on this is: US power can accomplish pretty much anything it wants to in the world, if properly applied. The debate we need to have is two fold: Should Darfur be saved? And, should we save it?
“Everywhere terror groups begin to establish centers of gravity, we need to attack them, kill them, and break their stuff.”
Charlie, aren’t you afraid that if we break the terror groups’ stuff, it could hurt their feelings and damage their self-esteem?
Meanie! (break their stuff) >>CLASSIC<
I wanna see Clooney pick up a gun and go help stop the killing himself, if he feels that strongly about it.
Until I see that level of commitment out of these Hollyweird types, until I see an a new Abraham Lincoln Brigade, until I see something else than call for the usual suspects to “do something”, I will see such statements by Clooney and similar as empty posturing.
Deeds, not words.
Yeah, gotta watch out for those rouge states (Khmer Rouge) etc. Of course I worry most about the Rogue states… (From one who has never made a typo in his life– yeah right)
Keep up the fine work!
Should Darfur be saved? Yes. Should the US get invovled? Yes.
That said. No UN involvement. NATO only please. US led security, humanitarian relief, establish friendly gvt., conduct ops to eradicate bad guys, establish another friendly US base/post presence.
Hell, let’s make Darfur the Dubai of Africa!
“genocides need to be stopped, wherever they occur, period.”
How, and by whom?
There have been a number of wars and genocides and slaughters since the Holocaust, particularly in Africa. How has the rest of the world been affected by the deaths of all these people? In what way would the world be a better place if all the victims were still alive? In what ways is the world poorer for their demise? It is heartless and cruel to be so blunt, but maybe all these people were not rescued because the cost to the potential rescuers was not considered worth the reward.
If sovereign states don’t have the right to monopolize the use of lethal force and kill their own citizens when they deem it necessary, who does? I prefer a sovereign United States and reject foreign interference in our internal affairs. If we do away with national sovereignty, we are left with global government or global anarchy.
Once we have established the precedent that the Anglosphere is morally bound to respond to all genocides, then the enemy need only scatter our forces to the four winds by massacres in diverse places.
We have finite resources. Some tasks, no matter how noble, will have to be taken up by someone else, or left undone.
The resources required to “do” Darfur are rather staggering, and Sudan is much bigger.
Is this really want one wants to do the next 20 years? Why Sudan, when Congo has already failed completely and is much worse in humanitarian terms (no terrs of course)?
Quite frankly, bin Laden and co is the only case that makes intervention in Darfur/Sudan even worth considering ….
We need to step it up as a nation and help these people! I might be on the outside looking in but why is it so hard to go over there and help? I understand there is a war going on in Iraq (Which appears to be way more important) but how can we as a strong nation sit here and watch as children, women and men get slaughtered, raped and tortured. But our media is going nutso over a freakin football player that tortured and slaughtered a dog. Hmmmm? I just hope Georgy can rest at night knowing that he could prevent and help this but instead he chooses to be silent. This is really sad.
Ok, the way I see it, if the United States can take down Saddam Hussein for how he terrorized the people of Iraq, why can’t we do the same to Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir. It may be costly, but all the money in the world isn’t worth an innocent someone’s life when it’s taken from them? I don’t understand why we can’t just help by a simple thing(in our eyes) as water!!