Darfur: Part I

First, let me apologize for taking so long to put this up.  Last night’s activities hit me pretty hard. 

Background info: This post arises from a comment battle on Lost in Leflar, a friend’s blog.  Said friend asked why so many liberals advocate intervention in Darfur, yet opposed toppling Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime.  Crosby (a commenter) and I disagreed pretty strongly about the proper means of intervention into Iraq and/or Sudan.  He (or she? I don’t personally know Crosby) kindly agreed to let me quote some of his (or her) comments for the purposes of discussion.  So, here we go.

Crosby:  “Those who argue for going in to Darfur don’t support toppling the government (at least not the ones I’ve heard). They support a sort of peacekeeping and humanitarian force to help the people being slaughtered.  I would have supported a similar force in Iraq if it had ever been proposed.  I think we should try to be more like a peacekeeping force now, honestly.  But Bush has stated that he doesn’t want that, which I feel is unfortunate.  If you’re going to put your troops in harm’s way, you might as well have then building up a country’s infrastructure than creating and killing insurgents.”

In my response to these comments, I pointed out that American troops work every day to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure: in addition to dying in order to protect the fragile new Iraqi democracy, U.S. military forces build and repair roads, schools, factories, power lines, etc.  They do this every single day.  And in order to do so, they have to kill a lot of terrorists (oops! I mean “insurgents”).

But onto the idea of a “peacekeeping and humanitarian force” for Darfur.  Crosby (and others who support non-military intervention in Darfur) apparently are not concerned–or perhaps do not know–that the Sudanese government (as well as the radical Islamic Janjaweed, whom the government continues to fund) has absolutely refused to allow international troops (“peacekeeping” or otherwise) to enter Darfur.  So I’m unclear as to how, precisely, these proposed “peacekeeping” forces are to get into Darfur to begin with, absent a military invasion.  As the Sudanese government has made amply clear, any intervention whatsoever will be viewed as a military attack and responded to as such, regardless of its purported intent.

I’m also unclear as to how peace can be enforced when it does not exist.  Conditions in Darfur are in fact far worse than in Iraq, where there is at least a functioning (if struggling and constantly beset) government which American troops are fighting daily to protect from Islamist terrorists (oops! I mean “insurgents”).  In Darfur, there is not even a semblance of peace. 

First, I think we can all agree that the only way to “help the people being slaughtered” in Darfur is to prevent them from being slaughtered. If we could magically teleport UN “peacekeepers” into Darfur, how would they non-violently stop the genocide there?  They couldn’t, of course: they’d have to kill a whole bunch of bloodthirsty nutjobs (the fact that UN “peacekeepers” carry weapons is a tacit concession to this reality).  So, then, how are “peacekeeping” international forces different on any meaningful level than, say, U.S. troops acting unabashedly in America’s interests–aside from the fictitious gloss of disinterested piety that liberals unthinkingly grant the UN?  The only real differences are that (1) “peacekeeping” troops would be far less effective in getting rid of the people perpetrating the genocide; and (2) liberals would feel better about foreigners invading a sovereign nation if the UN does it.  It just feels better; it feels more right.

The Sudanese government and their Janjaweed thugs have helpfully drawn the proverbial line in the sand for us.  We need to be honest about the options here: either we (whether “we” means the UN or some other nation/coalition) intervene, triggering a war with Sudan and all the Islamist whackjobs who will flood in to fight the infidels (as they are doing now in Iraq), or we can sit back and let the genocide continue until Darfur is free of all inconvenient people.

It is absolutely essential to acknowledge that the genocide in Darfur is yet another manifestation of radical Islam’s worldwide jihad.  Remember that the Sudanese government hosted Osama bin Laden in the 90’s, and al-Qaeda had training camps in Sudan.  Bin Laden planned the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa from his refuge in Sudan, and has promised that al-Qaeda will join the Janjaweed to attack UN or other intervening forces in Darfur.  Furthermore, the regime in Khartoum (which of course denies its ties with al-Qaeda) has been controlled by the National Islamic Front since 1989 (the NIF is an offshoot of Egypt’s radical terrorist group, the Muslim Brotherhood). 

In other words, the Sudanese government is a state sponsor of global terrorism which has declared and sponsored jihad against its own people.  Like every other jihadi force on the planet, they define “peace” as the obliteration of infidels and other dissenting people, not the non-violent resolution of disagreement through compromise and civilized debate.  Until liberals can bring themselves to absorb this fundamental reality, their passionate exhortations in the name of “peace” will do little to assist any human being who lives in the real, physical world. 

To Be Continued. . . .


~ by lewdandlascivious on March 11, 2007.

3 Responses to “Darfur: Part I”

  1. I think a military invasion would be completely justified in Darfur. I would like to see it undertaken by the U.N., which has by far the most experience in Africa, but such an invasion seems unlikely given the U.N.’s typical respect for sovereignty even amid terrible atrocities.

    The only reason I push for a UN-style peacekeeping force is because it encompasses diplomacy, development, disarmament, and state building. The U.S. military is not built like this, and it isn’t supposed to be. It is built to be an accurate, efficient killing machine, and it does its job well. Even in Iraq, the non-military duties are not done by military personnel. They are done by contractors.

    In summary, I don’t think our views are really that different. I support the use of violence in Darfur for self-defense or to defend the refugees and IDPs. But I do support the use of the U.N. in Darfur (if either let in or through an invasion) only because it has a proven track record in Africa. It has recently helped to facilitate peace proposals in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Cote d’Ivoire. And the U.N. has shown its willingness to stay in countries long after the war is over to help rebuild. The U.S. doesn’t train or equip its military to act in such a manner.

  2. Hey, Crosby! Glad you came by.
    I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about whether the UN is better-equipped to do (or better at doing) what the U.S. is doing at this moment in Iraq. I do have to say, however, that the U.S. military IS actively rebuilding Iraq, e.g., via the Army Corps of Engineers http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/, in addition to private contractors.

    I’d also like to say that the Cote d’Ivoire situation is not comparable to that in Darfur. The Cote d’Ivoire conflict was between the nation’s government and rebel forces attempting coups d’etat. The genocide in Darfur is being carried out by government-sponsored thugs: how can UN peacekeepers broker a deal between victims of genocide and those who seek to kill them?

  3. The situation in CD was clearly much more conducive to peace. I wasn’t trying to compare it to Darfur, I was just using it as an example of U.N. success in Africa. I don’t know what a peace plan would look like in Darfur. The question of how you go about eliminating hatred based on perceived difference is pretty impossible to solve, but I think it has to start with education and access to fair media. In my opinion the U.S. should spend more money on building up civil society than it does on its military. But I understand that few people would support that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: