i wonder how many E.R. fans think the episodes where Carter and pals are in Sudan, helping refugees, while getting attacked by rebels on camelback, are based in fact - that shit is actually happening, right now - and aren't just a way to give Noah Wyle a light schedule ?

And woe betide conservatives for even suggesting an armed intervention in Darfur after being maligned for five years as armchair warriors and the "101st fighting keyboard division."

Kevin,

In the first paragraph, I thought the TNR editorial might actually have been written by Foer. But then, there are three long paragraphs blaming liberals (!!) for American indecisiveness/indifference on the issue, followed by one meek and measly "to be sure" paragraph on how, oh yeah, maybe the Bush Administration and Republicans have something to do with our inaction, too. Pure Peretz...

when it comes to a military response, there are a range of possibilities.

air power we have a surplus of...that's not a problem per se. basing and logistics are a more significant issue.

we could certainly rouse up an MEF for a short-term ground intervention...but that's short-term.

the existing refugee camps can be guarded by professional firms...the UN just has to be willing to do it.

But even if we did, it wouldn't change the fact that there's not one single country in the world willing to seriously commit troops to Darfur. Not one. And unless we're talking about that, we're not talking about the real problem at all.

Wrong Kevin. The real problem is members of the New Left like you who are squeamish about supporting military intervention in Darfur because you don't want to support Bush. With the large amount of resource this country has, the only problem we can have in liberarting Darfur is will. As the world's only superpower, we can free Darfur. But New Left like you would rather side with Old Europe than to stop genocide.

Maybe "evidence" that the Sudanese government is communist or has WMDs. Damn Liberals! Good thing this sort of problem won't happen when Bush is president --"not on my watch" !!!

I did not see a recommendation of arming the poor people of Darfur so they can fight for themselves. The US and W. Europe are never available to help the people who actually need it. Too busy playing geopolitics.

And why can't the US do anything in Darfur?

Primarily because of that asininely stupid war that TNR loved so much.

It's not just there tone, Kevin, it's that they got policy wrong a lot. And have gotten facts wrong a lot too - Stephen Glass, Shalit, etc.

Please Kevin, these are great points and good analysis - but why aren't you going to excellent magazines and papers all over the world to start your argument (and thus drawing attention to good publication)? Rather than pointing people to some nutcase's plaything?

You're good, Kevin really good, but it would a wee bit stronger if you looked for food for thought at places other than TNRO, and TNRO alumni.

How is the peace deal in the south going?

Last I heard the rebel leader who signed the deal died in a plane crash and an "independant" group of militants was killing civilians in ex-rebel held territory.

The real problem is members of the New Left like you who are squeamish about supporting military intervention in Darfur because you don't want to support Bush

so, Bush supports military action in Darfur, and it's the Left's fault he can't follow-through. right.

go away, troll.

"With the large amount of resource this country has, the only problem we can have in liberarting Darfur is will."

So that's where the troops will come from --- willpower! So let's all just wish REALLY HARD, and the whole thing will go away!

The west needs an African Relief Army that they control, even under UN auspicies. This army would be an unaffiliated army in a friendly country, with bases, training, a small airforce, and under strict control by a commission of African and Western powers.

Look at Mali, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania and Kenya for support.

The mission of the army would be provide security for UN releif efforts. Wherever there is starvation and war, you send in this army, secure the area and provide relief regardless of the antagonists. Make this army strictly neutral and strictly focused on helping relief efforts.

It will take a few years for it to become effective, but there is always genocide and starvation in Afica so there will be plenty of work for it.

If the need is urgent today, just outright buy a division from a reasonably friendly African counry right away. Try Kenya, work a money deal to hire, outight a third of their amy and use that as a nucleus. Put them under UN command, new uniforms, upgade their equipment and go maching.

Where is the Left's call for a UN mandate to take action? The criticism here seems to be misdirected. Afterall, it would be immoral to use military force without international sanction, you know, to be unilateral in military decision making just rankles the progressives.

The reason not a single country has acted is because it's not a job a single country can or should do. A single country would not be regarded as legitimate in Sudan or elsewhere and would face the same problems the US is facing in Iraq. We need to get over the idea of the US as disinterested, all-powerful global police, which it obviously is not, and move towards the idea of countries cooperating to resolve conflict and defend themselves. The Security Council must be made more representative and given a mandate to stop conflicts like this before it's too late. Otherwise we'll see this collective action problem again and again (see, e.g., Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia, East Timor, etc.).

Of course, since we haven't developed these cooperative mechanisms, and Darfur is happening right now, we're kind of screwed and need "a single country" to step up to the plate. But it won't happen. So for next time, then, let's try the other thing.

None of Our Business
Charley Reese on the war drums of Darfur.

"It's a heck of a note when rich people can salve their conscience by sending poor kids to fight and die instead of going themselves. "

Can I take a stab at it and say that it's ignorance? But not ignorance of the genocide but ignorance of the region.

In Southern Sudan (and probably one of the causes of the Darfur genocide) there is a multilateral Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the civil war and crimes against humanity occurring there.

It's involving 7,200 troops at the moment (no U.S. troops at that, but U.S. police personnel) with a billion dollar approved budget. I don't see why you can't recreate the CPA in Darfur with the same results. The problem is that the CPA guarantees a right of referendum for the Southern Sudanese, which the Darfurians want, but Sudan is unwilling to give for Darfur.

One of the problems with "opening up a can of whup-ass" on Darfur is that you immediately jeopardize the peace agreement in the South, which is based on Khartoum's consent. So any plan for agressive intervention in Darfur which does not consider impact on the South of Sudan needs to be tossed as ignorant. This is also one of the reasons why the U.S. is proceeding delicately while still agressively labeling what's happening in Darfur a genocide.

The "optimistic" force projection numbers are probably based on the CPA's UN Peacekeeping force.

If you want to learn more about it, read here:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmis/facts.html

These people are screwed. The UN doesn't have the capability to act and never will. The US has the capability but it's politically impossible in the current environment. George Clooney would love to support US intervention but after his agruments on Iraq that's not possible. George requires UN approval. That's not happening. The choice for George is to swallow his pride and support unilateral military interventions AND GWB in order to save lives OR bite his tongue and hope for a miracle.

Not much of a choice. They'll just have to suffer for now and await the miracle.

The optimist in me hopes that those on the Left who supported the big march on Darfur last week - which included groups like MoveOn - will realize that the logical result of their position is to support a stronger US / NATO role in ending the conflict.

The best way to shut Martin Peretz up is to prove him wrong, not to whine about The New Republic.

Like "Powerpuff" above, I think arming the civilians so they can defend themselves is the best of a bad lot of options. Drop Ak-47s and ammo, some RPGs to scare off the helicopters supporting the janjaweed, and ideally some Green Beret types (covert or just outside Sudan's borders) to provide some training. I don't pretend this is the equivalent of real military intervention, but at least it has a chance of happening and would likely do more good than harm.

The only way Bush would EVER consider putting troops in Sudan is fi he was convinced that his political backers would be able to profit from the endeavor. He is a war president, he comes to work every day with war profiteering on his mind. Let's face it, no matter how they cook the books KBR could NEVER justify charging the government half a million dollars for each mud hut reconstructed, even for rabid Bushco supporters THAT would be beyond the pale right?

Maybe they could catheterize every Darfurian, stick the drainage end in their mouths, and charge the American taxpayer for water reclaimation? Just a thought.

Is George Clooney Secretary of State? Defense? Who knew!?

A pig government dickwit like the certifiable moron Kevin Drum will keep acting like a political vegetable or even political mineral before putting out a net contract on this nonsense.
Private armies like Sandline have their own air forces these days and there is a lot of unemployment in Africa. So the money is raised online by small private donations ( my 2 e-cents) - private armies are used and Kevin Drum can go back to jerking his dick off to nude pictures of Elanor Roosvelt.
They all lived happily ever after.

That's Eleanor Roosevelt. Mrs. Roosevelt to you, stupid.

Yeah, George freakin' Clooney is the major power player here. Couldn't possibly be some other guy named George who would have us in Darfur if he felt like it. He controls the White House and his party controls Congress. Oh, and he doesn't really need Congress's approval to do anything so there is that too.

Like Kevin pointed out, the US cannot commit the troops to Darfur we need to. Our administration has squandered the international goodwill necessary to motivate other countries into joining us in action. Diplomacy is needed here. Not with the Sudanese, but with the other nations of the world and yes, with the United Nations. When we have an administration that is hostile to any diplomatic efforts and has effectively pissed away nearly all of our strong stategic ties throughout the globe, there is frighteningly little that can be done. But the last people to blame are Democrats and George freakin' Clooney.

I love the smell of quagmires in the morning...

Seriously: considering Iraq, what makes you all think the US could avoid a similar military disaster in Sudan?

30,000 troops? Get real. There's no way we could do it with fewer than 100,000. To all the people who think we can do this with 30,000 troops, I have one question: Do you also think we'll be greeted as liberators?

Re African Union being nearly a joke -- anyone else realize that the African (black, not colonial troops) on both sides in the first World War, especially the German, were extremely high quality?

The estimate of 15,000 troops in Darfur is probably about right--if they're not in a major shooting war with the Sudanese government. (The area is about the same as Afghanistan and that would be about twice the current UN troop strength in the South.) However, that's a big if...

The choices at this point appear to be a foreign/UN force or the AU. However, Khartoum has made it clear that a foreign force is extremely unwelcome (UN or not). Such a force would have to be prepared for something much more serious than monitoring and policing, and would likely have to be prepared for widespread guerilla/counter-insurgency actions. No surprise no one wants to touch it.

Which leaves the AU. The efficacy of the AU is dependent on several things:

• Money. The last AU conference raised enough money to increase forces last year to the current level of about 7,500; it was envisioned that the force would increase to 12,000 in early 2006, which hasn't happened. That is probably the easiest problem to solve.

• Equipment and training. Even given money, the AU doesn't have the equipment or the ability to make effective use should a boat-load of equipment get dumped on them. A little help could go a long way...

  The UN has started a training program for AU forces in Darfur; the composition is a bit rag-tag and tells a sorry story (UNPF, HCHR, UNICEF), but at least they're trying.

• Khartoum. Khartoum would obviously prefer to be left to its own devices in Darfur, and has dragged its feet whenever possible. Short of declaring war on Khartoum, or an international agreement to neuter it, this will remain a major problem.

  Of note, Khartoum is one of the more enthusiastic supporters of the AU force these days; that will undoubtedly continue as long as the AU force remains ineffective.

  Also of note, Khartoum has started an anti-Western/UN campaign, promising to make Sudan a "graveyard" for the West, the militia talking up "holy war", bounties placed on two Western diplomats, etc.

The African Union could scrape up 30,000 decently equipped troops if the west helped pay for them and provided transport, logistics, and air cover. Nigeria, Rwanda, and South Africa all have elected governments and decently trained and equipped armies. Smart diplomacy and financial aid could work here, if there was the will to get it done. And therein lies the problem...

Eleanor Roosevelt ...I know you goose. I just did that to annoy Hellary Clinton if she was reading. And why isn't she all over this hot button issue?
After her hubbies efforts to save millions of lives in Rwanda...oh wait.
She looks pretty busy now come to think of it. Clutching her pearls over flagburning and heading for the fainting couch on abortion.
Speaking of abortion I wonder if you held up a wire coat hanger if that would turn away vampires like Tim Russert?
Just wondering.
Condi Rice cares for the raped women of Darfur...she'll be mad as hell when this bubbles up from the bowels of the CIA. They might even be aborting the raped babies! The horror! The horror!

Dave B. has it right. There's some positive thinking. Even if we can't do much good in Darfur now, we could work to put in place mechanisms that will prevent and/or cure future genocide. And you can be sure there will be future genocides among the human race!

Canada would have committed to Darfur, but our entire ground force capacity is being used in Afghanistan around Kandahar.

PS Our problem really resides in the conflict between different strains of Enlightenment thought: our government is representative of us, but we should extend human rights to all? It just shows up the problem between rationality and empirical reality -- the only rights you really only have are the ones you can defend. Hence, we are "well-off" with our military-industrial behemoth, and the people in Darfur are just poor suckers. As long as they are a them, they will have the liberty of dying first.

How about we drop in about a dozen SEAL teams, or Green Berets, or Rangers, and have them integrate into the camps, then periodically move under cover of darkness to other camps. Let the Janjaweed know they are in Sudan protecting camps, just not where. Give each team the latitude and equipment they need to exterminate the Janjaweed rebels and the air support that accompanies them.

Call it agressive warfare training. Imagine the priceless looks on their faces as they ride into camp to rape and murder innocents only to be gutted by a tumbleweed or shot out of the sky by a small pile of rocks!

Hey, I've got an idea.

Right now, we've got ~138,000 troops in Iraq. Their presence may be accomplishing some good, but clearly a very limited amount of good.

They'd accomplish a great deal of good in Darfur.

To get more specific, we've got tens of thousands of troops in Iraq that are doing nothing but keeping those 'enduring bases' running.

What we do is shut down an enduring base or two, and transfer those troops to Darfur.

Problem solved. Next!

A friend of mine did a lot of research for an academic presentation on that very subject. "Darfur: Is it Genocide" and when I asked her to level with me, the conclusion, she said it failed to meet the technical definition of genocide because at the time, it was still an open question whether the intent was to substantially harm/destroy the people in Darfur. I don't mean that she doubted it was, but simply that you could not prove it by the facts we had at that time (Feb.)

If we're considering linguistical correctness, perhaps bloodbath, butchery, slaughter, or liquidation would be more appropriate than the technical term genocide?

Darfur 2006 = Planet Earth 2060

Despite some backpedalling, Khartoum has agreed to a UN force. There are already 7,000 AU forces there, which could be folded into a UN force; France has 1,000 troops in Chad already; and if the UK could be convinced to provide the 5,000 troops that they offered in 2004. The US would only need to offer logistical support, the rest of the troops would come from the troops that AU has offered to provide.

The main problem with AU forces is not their ability, but rather their mandate. With the exception of UNMIR's Bangladeshi troops, the rest (including Ghanian troops) performed well in Rwanda, given the circumstances. Their major problems were inadequate funding/supplies and a weak mandate.

The important thing to remember when the UN force is getting ready to intervene is that a weak mandate that doesn't allow the troops to defend civilians will just make them witnesses to yet another genocide. However, since most people dying are being starved to death or falling victim to disease, a UN force could save a lot of lives simply by protecting the delivery of food and supplies.

All of this just illustrates that there needs to be more work done on the idea of the responsibility to protect.

Feathers McGraw: Nigeria, Rwanda, and South Africa all have elected governments and decently trained and equipped armies.

The current AU protective force in Darfure (rank order): Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Gambia, Kenya, Chad; South Africa is increasing it's contribution which will put it #3.

There have been significant funding shortfalls and a significant amount of the assistance pledged early last year did not show up. The EU stepped up to help, but there's still a significant gap. (More details on funding, force structure, equipment and disposition can be found here.)

The current UN strategy basically transfers AU forces (AMIS) to UN control (UNMIS), so not much would change operationally except helmet color, although funding and support might (I would hope and expect) be less of an issue; substantive increases beyond that are 6-9 months out. The AU has expressed support in principle for the transfer of control. Khartoum appears to oppose it, although it previously stated it would reconsider once an agreement was signed (which happened last week).

In any case, it's time to call Khartoum's bluff, if that's what it is. The options are pretty clear:

• Khartoum agrees to UN forces in Darfur, starting with the existing AU forces. At which point we can argue about appropriate size and support.
• Khartoum will not agree to UN forces in Darfur, in which case: (1) we put some serious effort into making the AU work and not let Khartoum weasel out; (2) we effectively declare war on Khartoum in Darfur--of course "we" is as yet unanswered; or (3) let it continue to slide.

p.s. sean -- Note the weasel-words by Sudan. Their acceptance of UN forces is far from clear. That said, it's time to push them hard on it.

A Weasel-te-yay-ian editorial is just a Peretzian editorial on blow.

Any time the US followed through when peoples' lives were at stake, there was a Democrat in the White House. Republicans just can't get it done. Bosnia, WWII...

there's not one single country in the world willing to seriously commit troops to Darfur. Not one. And unless we're talking about that, we're not talking about the real problem at all.

Taking the points in reverse order, the real problem is the government of Sudan. Then, not only is there no country willing to seriously commit troops to Darfur, but at least 2 on the security council are actively opposed to any commitment of troops, and actively opposed to commitment to any action that might be effective. Now al Qaeda is also committed to opposition to any intervention that might be perceived as anti-Islamic, so any day we can expect the suicide bombings to start. I expect the first targets to be a clinic run by Doctors without Borders, where they can get the most infidels for the bang.

There is a civil war in Pakistan, an insurgency in Afghanistan, and a sort of a civil war (or something) in Iraq. In those 3 places the good (or slighlty less bad) still may prevail over the bad (or worse). I advise to win those first.

Darfur is as big as France. It is about 1,000 miles inland, and has no good roads. It is separated from the sea by mountains and a wide river. You are only fretting about Darfur so that you can feel good about abandoning Iraq.

"Sanctions and humanitarian aid"? The aid will be stolen by the government and the sanctions will either be ignored or imposed on the poorest of the poor, as happened (both) in Iraq. Nobody is going to enforce sanctions while China is buying more oil and selling more military hardware to the Sudanese government.

It is possible, with American assistance, that the Pakistani amy can prevail in Waziristan. It is possible, with American and European assistance, that the elected government can prevail and establish itself in Afghanistan. It is possible, with American (and other) assistance, that the elected government can prevail and establish itself in Iraq. Commit to succeeding there, and there may be success.

A large, mostly unilateral American lead invasion that began by taking out the government in Khartoum might eventually have a good humanitarian effect farther west and south. When you are ready to organize a letter-writing campaign to our senators Boxer and Feinstein and our sevaral representatives of both parties; and when you are ready to risk the confrontation with al Qaeda, China and the countries that oppose our intervention, let me know.

With 15,000 soldiers you could not control San Diego County.

In addition to training the people of Darfur to defend themselves, how about paying protection money? Offer the Sudan government $1000 a head for protecting the 2 Million Sudanese refugees: $2 Billion if no one dies.

Cheaper than sending in troops.

A large, mostly unilateral American lead invasion that began by taking out the government in Khartoum might eventually have a good humanitarian effect farther west and south.

Pulled right out of your ass.

But the last people to blame are Democrats and George freakin' Clooney.

I haven't seen anyone blame George Clooney. Many are marveling at the supreme irony of his position. He can't advocate unilateral action. Been there condemned that. Yet he knows people are getting slaughtered because We are the only nation capable of actually doing anything and he can't go there. So he's left with the UN and we all know that's not possible. Even if France and Germany and the rest of Western Europe had the will they don't have the means.

Why don't those on the left just call for unilateral action? Is it pride? Clooney knows for a fact the slaughter is occuring almost every day. He knows the USA alone can stop it. Why does he hesitate?

republicrat: Then, not only is there no country willing to seriously commit troops to Darfur, but at least 2 on the security council are actively opposed to any commitment of troops, and actively opposed to commitment to any action that might be effective.

That mischaracterizes China's and Russia's (not to mention India's and Pakistan's) position. They are not opposed to a UN mission or troops per se, or reducing turmoil in the area--as is obvious from their agreement to, and participation in, the UNMIS forces in the South. What they are very leery of is a Western army in Sudan.

Any time the US followed through when peoples' lives were at stake, there was a Democrat in the White House. Republicans just can't get it done. Bosnia, WWII...

And a very impressive record that is. Germany and Japan attacked us, declared war on us and then the Democrats decided to fight back. Wow!

Bosia was just as impressive. Clinton tells Milosovich, not to worry, we won't put a single pair of boots on the ground. and he takes that all clear to start a genocide. Slick Willie then spends a month playing at level one on his video game war before he's pressured to go to level two and actually deliver some pain and stop the slaughter.

What happened to Korea and Vietnam?

That mischaracterizes China's and Russia's (not to mention India's and Pakistan's) position

How is that? The UN cannot field troops in a war zone where offensive capabilities are required. So UN troops are not an option. China and Russia are blocking every other effort to put pressure on the govt to stop the slaughter as well. What we ended up with in the south is still a disaster. Those displaced are safer but still displaced and in a hopeless economic position.

rdw,

Besides WWII, Bosnia and the Gulf War (the last of which did not involve a genocide), modern America has not won any other major wars. Correct me if I'm wrong? When have Republicans gotten it done?

rdw -- Three non-sequiturs, five lies and one truth (you're slipping). Go fish.

Besides WWII, Bosnia and the Gulf War (the last of which did not involve a genocide), modern America has not won any other major wars. Correct me if I'm wrong?

Other than Vietnam, what other "major wars" were there?

What would be an effective action, anyways? What would it take to stop the fighting? I'm a little unclear exactly what the reason is for all the killing in the first place. From what I understand, multiple tribes were killing each other over resources, so the central gov't sent in the militia, which is now killing everybody. So is the problem the central gov't, or is it the tribes, which would probably go back to slaughtering each other if the militia were removed? Furthermore, how could we hope to pacify such a large country? The Darfur region alone is almost as large as Texas. The current population is estimated to be 39 million. It would take our entire armed forces to hope to be effective in a country of such size. The Chinese have interests in Sudan. Maybe we should let them deal with it.

But..if you send troops you just become part of the problem. The only moral course is to condemn all use of force and organise Peace protests against anyone who says otherwise. Those exterminated refugees, are just going to have to wait!

Now, you know why some people would rather follow the neo-cons.

The Chinese have interests in Sudan. Maybe we should let them deal with it.

Posted by: Pocket Rocket on May 10, 2006 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

In other words, let the genocide happen.

Mainland China believes internal sovereignity is more important than human rights. It wouldn't interfere.

This is where the lefty criticism of Bush breaks down. Waiting on someone else who you know will never take action, means that you don't mind it happening.

My view is this. Deduct 50% of UN funding and use it to send private military companies to the region. Tell the UN they get the money back when the UN organises volunteers from other nations.

What we do is shut down an enduring base or two, and transfer those troops to Darfur.

Problem solved. Next!

Posted by: RT on May 10, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Why is Iraq any less worthy of support than Darfur? Preventing civil war and ending Saddam era mass graves was a worthy goal.

Besides, you accomplish nothing if you run around doing projects half way.

Now, you know why some people would rather follow the neo-cons.

It's refreshing to see that you're as butt-stupid as ever, McA.

Atta boy!

Besides, you accomplish nothing if you run around doing projects half way.

Did you learn that in Kollege???

Pocket Rocket -- The best option appears to be what is being done. It's slow and painful and it sucks when people are dying, but it's better than nothing and better than most of the alternatives that have been proposed.

A unilateral/western response of sufficient scale would require a commitment to stay for the long haul, and be willing to take on a guerilla war. No one is willing, much less capable (and I include the US), of doing that. Sometimes there aren't any good options.

See Me's post above above which makes some good points as to why a heavy-handed approach could backfire. The Sudan is a complicated and messy place; Darfur is only one piece of it.

tbrosz,

I would count Korea (stalemate) and Vietnam (debacle) as major wars, as well as the most recent takeover of Iraq. Bay of Pigs invasion, Beirut, Panama, Somalia...small. Afghanistan is not won and will not be won. I'm really not so concerned by us losing -- we end up securing our interests one way or another -- as much as I am concerned that our country has only twice followed through on an effort to end genocide. Like I said, Bosnia and WWII, both of which involved our interests, so it's not exactly an unambiguous moral victory. In any case, Clinton and Roosevelt, Democrats, executed those wars. Republicans haven't been exactly interested in the welfare of other peoples; and they still aren't.

It's always such a pleasure to see the left claiming the moral high ground! I was at the Darfur rally. The people organizing around Darfur are not the luminaries of the left - despite George Clooney's appearance - they are religious and humanitarian organizations, many of them Jewish (for example the American Jewish World Service). Move-on was decidedly a johnny-come-lately with their plea for a "virtual march." Big whup. You click a few times on your computer and you've virtually marched. The hard organizing, lobbying the government, trying to figure out what might actually work has been done by the folks in the Save Darfur coalition. Kevin, you may consider TNR sanctimonious on this issue (I don't) but they are actually taking it seriously - unlike such wonders of the left as The Nation, Amy Goodman, etc., who are all focused on the evils of the Bush administration and the Israeli government. I would love it if people on the left were taking the lead on this issue, but there is no evidence that that is true.

Anyone tempted to believe Rebecca's comment about Amy Goodman should google "Democracy Now darfur" and see what comes up.

The liberal human rights groups have been talking about Darfur all along, because they are morally consistent. The same can't be said of everyone. Darfur receives attention from some because the villains are Arab Muslims, and I say that because similar or greater slaughters in Africa and elsewhere go ignored in cases where the villains don't fit the profile of the main enemy of the moment, or worse, when the villains are people we actually support. There were no calls for intervention in the eastern Congo (4 million dead) where our friend Museveni of Uganda was participating in the slaughter, and going further back, we funded some earlier African murderers, like Savimbi. And since Rebecca brought them up, Israel also has a long history of supporting the same murderers we supported, including Savimbi and in Guatemala, Rios Montt. There's always politics behind which slaughters get attention and which ones don't.

Republicans haven't been exactly interested in the welfare of other peoples; and they still aren't.

Of course not! Republicans are evil and Democrats are good. And you not elitists either. It might sound that way but you are merely speaking truth to power. When you are morally superior that what one does.

When George Clooney talks of restoring the term 'liberal' to it's former esteem why do you suppose he feels that need?

When you look around and realize the Democrats once owned Congress and the WH but have since lost everything do you have a theory as to why? Seriously, let's think about this. There's no doubt liberals are morally and intellectually superior. It's obvious. There's no argument. It's just a fact of life.

So how come you keep losing elections?

Why does George want to restore liberals?

No one is willing, much less capable (and I include the US), of doing that. Sometimes there aren't any good options.

The US is absolutely capable. We are not willing. Nor will we be willing anytime soon. It's not our fight.

Europe is not capable. Europe was unable to do a thing in Bosnia and that's part of Europe. Europe does not have a coherent military and of the individual armies only the UK could even consider action. Until Europe combines for a true single military, very unlikely, They will never be able to provide much more than peace-keeping duties.

Correct me if I'm wrong? When have Republicans gotten it done?

My favorite example is the cold war. Ronald Reagan won it without firing a shot with brilliant diplomacy. I know Star Wars is an open sore with liberals but you've got to admit it spooked Gorby bigtime. Reagan also set up the largest transformation of country rule from socialist / repressive models (Castro / Ortega / Chavez) to capitalist /democratic systems. Think of Eastern europe or Central America and the contra's. The world is far less socialist than in 1980, far freer and far more prosperous.

As far as your Democratic 'win's' they are all the result of the worl of the pre-69 party. The post-68 party is very different. You would have FDR in jail for domestic spying and most libs still hate Truman for dropping the bomb. That's OK. The South Koreans appreciate his efforts.

I am puzzled why liberals would even mention Bosnia. It wasn't a war. There were no armies. There wasn't a single soldier in Bosnia at the time. It was a video game. It's settled nothing. It was a stalemate when we got involved. As soon as Clinton signaled no ground troops the genocide started. The air force ended the genocide from orbit. They are back to where they started except the economy has been destroyed.

What's the victory? Who won? Won what? It's an extremely weak attempt to claim a legacy for Clinton. Sorry, he doesn't have one.

has407: That mischaracterizes China's and Russia's (not to mention India's and Pakistan's) position. They are not opposed to a UN mission or troops per se, or reducing turmoil in the area--as is obvious from their agreement to, and participation in, the UNMIS forces in the South. What they are very leery of is a Western army in Sudan.

Well, reasonable people can disagree. However, a "Western" army in Sudan is the only thing likely to have a benevolent effect in Darfur. So the policy of opposing a "Western" army is equivalent to a policy of opposing effective action. If in the upcoming weeks the Chinese and Russians agree to participate in the UN mission in Darfur, with the US providing some logistical and firepower support, they'll have proved me wrong.

As to the comment of Ahem, my maint point is that small forces concentrated in the large region of Darfur, and recognizing the sovereignty and legitimacy of the current government in Khartoum, are not going to have an effect. UN troops in Bosnia were completely ineffectual, as were UN troops in almost everywhere.

Back to the point about Amy Goodman's coverage of Darfur. For my sins, I live in a place where Amy Goodman's show is considering equal to the voice of God, so I end up listening to it a fair amount. (And all criticism aside, I appreciate much of her coverage). But I have heard very few segments on Darfur on her show - the basic facts, refugees, the UN, U.S. actions or lack thereof about Darfur. It just hasn't been one of her priorities. I would like Darfur to be much more of a priority on the left than it is.

The Cold War had been fought by many during the decades before Reagan. It would be more accurate to say that he oversaw an historical process.

Bosnia concerned genocide, the topic of this thread -- that's why it's relevant. Besides during Clinton's time and during WWII, when did the US win a war in which there were mass exterminations of civilians? None as far as I know... Even then, our interests were heavily implicated.

Victory is not in our blood, people. Securing our interests is. It's not always the same thing.

It just hasn't been one of her priorities. I would like Darfur to be much more of a priority on the left than it is.

No civilized people should be willing to watch a genocide and do nothing. The left has nothing to offer, nothing to discuss. Unilateral action by the US is out of the question. This is the only option capable of actual results. Limiting options to the UN is to be complicit in the genocide. They cannot act and you know they cannot act.

The Cold War had been fought by many during the decades before Reagan. It would be more accurate to say that he oversaw an historical process.

Reagan stood on the shoulders of great Presidents like Truman and Eisenhower. JFK, LBJ and Nixon were also cold warriers who also stood up to the threat. Carter was a total sap played for a fool in Afghanistan, Africa, Central and South America during a period of aggressive Soviet expansion. Reagan did not just come in and follow a path laid out. His 1st foes were the Russians and his 2nd were the liberals who fought him every step of the way from his expansion of defense spending, to missle deployments and most obviously to Star Wars.

It was the liberals led by Rickard Holbrooke, Strobe Talbot, Mad Maddy who were advocating caution while lecturing socialism was a viable system that would be around for a long time and we needed to learn hpw to share the planet with them. The were advancing appeasement and having nervous breakdowns when Reagan was telling them, "To tear down that wall".

The History is very clear here. Reagan is on video tape. The liberals are on videotape. He was correct on everything. They were wrong on everything.

One of the great ironies of this age and the trauma of 1968 in the Democratic party is that liberals are incapable of embracing Truman or LBJ. Truman is a top 10 President although few liberal historians can put him there. LBJ, possibly one of the greatest legislators in history, is persona-non-grata among liberals. He passed the two most important acts of the last 60 years in 1964 and 1965 yet he remains the President who must not be named.

In 1968 liberals became appeasers. Comparisons with previous periods are pointless.

rdw,

Whoa, partisan! or should I say ideologue? certainly not free thinker!

Comparisons with previous periods are pointless.

I would say any conversation with you is pointless!

Good day.

Commenter,

No one disagress the Democrative party made a sharp left turn in 1968 and hasn't moved back. After the debacles of 68 and 72 the party gave up on nominating liberals. Carter and Clinton ran away from liberalism while Kerry banned the term from his campaign. Mondale could be considered an exception but that explains the disaster that resulted.

Comparing the Democratic party of 2006 with the party of FDR or Truman is absurd. Using Bosia as an example of a successful war is equally absurd. Bosnia was a video game.

The fact is we're not going into Farfur and the left has been silent because there's nothing they can say. The UN is a failure.

from the Belmont Club:

Bad as Darfur is the Congo by any measurement is far worse. Yet the Congo already has a UN Peacekeeping team: MONUC which is the largest UN Peacekeeping force in the world with over 16,000 soldiers. It is 50% larger than the proposed Peacekeeping Force for Darfur. And how effective is MONUC? While its spokesmen have described it as the 'only hope' of the Congolese President Musseveni of Uganda called it "useless" and no more than a bunch of tourists. So while the effectiveness of a 10,000 man UN Peacekeeping team in Darfur has yet to be empirically tested, there are historical grounds for thinking they will be no more effective than 10, 100 or 1,000 UN soldiers, and possibly as effective as 100,000.