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. . . .