I'm not sure i agree with all his criticism of the administration, indeed Bush has done far more than anyone else in the world, but if what's happening in Darfur is Genocide, as Powell called it, our response has been completely ineffectual. this would be an excellent opportunity for multilateralism between the US and France. surely we can spare some fighters and an AWACS to enforce a no-fly zone in support of perhaps 5k "crack" french paratroops. People are dying- where's the leadership necessary to get this done? why are democrats silent on this issue? it a perfect, and perfectly legitimate, opportunity to bash bush. Africans not worth anybody's time? http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006463 -- NO MORE RWANDAS The Darfur Genocide Enough excuses. The time to act is now. BY DON CHEADLE AND JOHN PRENDERGAST Thursday, March 24, 2005 As we sat in a refugee camp in Chad listening to Fatima describe how most of her family was killed by Sudanese government-sponsored Janjaweed militias, we found it incomprehensible that the world could not muster the political will necessary to protect her surviving family members or to hold the killers accountable. Since returning from our visit to Chad and Darfur in late January, we have pored over the rationales the U.S. government has used for its tepid response, and have found no fewer than 10 lame excuses. First, when former Secretary of State Colin Powell famously called what was happening in Darfur "genocide," he said we were already doing all we could to counter it. In the six months since he and President Bush used the term, however, not one punitive measure has been imposed on the orchestrator of the atrocities--the Sudanese regime. And as the African Union (AU) struggles to deploy 2,000 troops to Darfur, a region the size of France, the French government recently announced that it will deploy 41,000 police in Paris if it is chosen as the Olympics site for 2012. Doing all we can? Second, U.S. officials say that if they pressure the regime any harder, it would implode and the consequences would be grave. Graver than what this administration has called genocide? Regardless, this is specious, as the regime is one of the strongest governments in Africa and in no danger of collapse. Third, U.S. officials have said since the beginning of the Darfur war that they needed to first focus on nailing a deal between the regime in Khartoum and southern-based rebels, which would in turn have immediate and positive impacts on the situation in Darfur. This approach led Khartoum to delay signing until the beginning of this year; since then the situation in Darfur has only deteriorated. Fourth, the U.S. has repeatedly said, to its credit, that justice must be done for the crimes that have been committed in Darfur. But it has sliced the legs out from under that sentiment by opposing referral of the Darfur case to the International Criminal Court, the ideal locus for timely and cost-effective accountability. Fifth, the U.S. has said that the Darfurian rebels, not the government, have recently been the biggest obstacle to forward movement. Evidence of continued government aerial bombing and Janjaweed raping has largely silenced this excuse. Sixth, U.S. officials say the deployment of the AU troops is all that is needed. But AU monitors in Darfur themselves say they are largely spectators in the face of continuing atrocities, and every Darfurian we talked to on the ground believes a much larger force with a much stronger mandate is needed to truly protect civilians. Seventh, the U.S. and its fellow donor nations focus mostly in their public statements on how much emergency aid is being provided, not saying that these are just humanitarian band-aids being applied over gaping human rights wounds. Eighth, the U.S. often argues that it cannot do more because China and Russia will veto more potent multilateral action on Darfur. But no one has tested this threat. It is time to play diplomatic chicken with Beijing and Moscow. The U.S. and U.K. should press for a vote on a strong U.N. Resolution with real consequences and dare anyone to support crimes against humanity by vetoing it. Ninth, the U.S. has argued that constructive engagement needs to be employed with Khartoum, rather than a punitive and isolationist approach. However, tough policy has a proven track record with the Sudanese regime: In the 1990s, the Security Council briefly punished Sudan for its support of terrorism, and the regime quickly changed its behavior. Despite this evidence the Security Council has dithered over the past two years to sanction the regime as the crisis in Darfur has intensified. This week's move by the U.S. to repackage a resolution it's tabled since mid-February will only delay action in Darfur further. Tenth, and most insidiously, the U.S. is arguing that the circumstances in Darfur are actually getting better. Facing increased incidences of rape and pillage, continuing aerial attacks, and, worst, a credible threat of famine, most Darfurians would beg to differ. So what is the real reason why the U.S. has not responded as it should have? The truth is that combating crimes against humanity is simply not considered a national security issue. We don't want to burn our leverage on Sudan in the face of issues such as Iraq, Iran and Syria. The only antidote to this searing truth--the only way the U.S. will take the kind of leadership necessary to end the horrors for Fatima and her people--is for there to be a political cost to inaction. As American citizens increasingly raise their voices and write their letters about Darfur, the temperature has indeed risen. But not enough. We need to make it a little warmer, a little more uncomfortable for those politicians who would look away. Just a few more degrees. Just a few more thousand letters. It is, frankly, that simple. Mr. Cheadle was nominated for an Academy Award for his performance in the film "Hotel Rwanda." Mr. Prendergast is an adviser to the International Crisis Group (www.crisisgroup.org).
Unfortunately, with our military spread as thin as it is, we just don't have the manpower to do anything about it. One of the unintended consequences of our elective war.
This is a situation where I'd like to see a U.S. lead United Nations peace keeping force go in there and put a stop to this. This is horrible, and we have been wrong in the past for not stopping things when we could. We'd be doubly guilty after we should have learned our lesson. Andy does make a good point about our military being spread thin at the moment. I'd also like to add that our previous actions aren't going to encourage other nations to jump in line with us on military involvements. This is horribly sad.
there are troops to do this, france has them, germany, the AU, hell south africa does. we could provide aircover and logistical support. i'm amazed (not really) that european countries would allow innocent africans to die because they're pissed at bush over iraq.
side debate...why are we always the ones forced to take the lead in stamping out crap like this? "well..the US is spread too thin...so i guess there's nothing we can do about it." we take a hell of a lot of grief here in the states. and a lot of it is VERY well deserved. but the notion that somehow the others who sit around with their arms-crossed watching crap like this happen is ok...or acceptable...or just completely ignored...is ridiculous.
Why does US tax payer have to foot the bill for everything? Why cann't EU or Africa Union do something? The UN is pathetic sometimes.
I thought it was pretty much common knowledge, but I guess not for someone as divorced from reality as you are. We are extending our troops' tours of duty, forcing them to reenlist under threat of being sent to Iraq, and not allowing people to retire after their service periods are up (all topics discussed at length on this board, you have the search feature, use it). In addition, we have committed most of our military reserves to Iraq for the foreseeable future, enlistment is down across all of the branches of military, and we are pulling people out of South Korea just so that we can meet all of our military commitments. You can see it as a "hunch" if you like, but my statement is, at worst, an educated guess.
Didn't think you could back up that claim. "Most of our military reserves have been committed to Iraq"? You are saying that >50% of the US military is committed to Iraq for the "foreseeable future"? Can you back that up, andy, or are you just guessing again in order to boost your weak position in this thread?
When we appointed ourselves the leader of the world, those duties just started falling on us. I agree with you. The rest of the world should do something, but generally they do not unless prodded and led by the US. Unfortunately, Bush burned most of our bridges with the rest of the world over Iraq and committed the lion's share of our military to Iraq for the foreseeable future. This is a recipe for ACTUAL humanitarian missions to fail or not get started in the first place. This is also a large part of the reason I was disgusted at the way this administration sold the war in Iraq. They made it seem NECESSARY to take out Saddam NOW (because of WMDs) and as a result of their misinformation, distortions, or lies (it really doesn't matter which they were) we are now unable to do the work ourselves as a result of lack of manpower and are unable to lead because of our lack of political capital.
Wow, Texxx can't even concede that our Armed Forces are stretched thin after 3 years of war. If you also said the sun is shining, Texxx would probably try to argue that it is the moon you see. Don't fall for Texxx's trap asking you to waste your time to find data to support that. This is just a BBS...not the pentagon. Notice that Texxx isn't offering up any counter arguments. So Texxx, are you saying you support an American lead effort to assist African nation's? Others seem to be wondering why we should waste American $ fighting a war in Africa. So what is your position?
I did back it up AFAIC. Given that I have NEVER seen you or your brother back up any of the garbage that you spew, it truly doesn't concern me that you don't feel that my claim is adequately backed up. Actually, the number I found (at usmilitary.about.com) was that 35% of the reserve forces (National Guard and Reserves) are actively a part of the "War on Terror," the vast majority in Iraq. Since there is absolutely no plan that has been presented to us regarding withdrawal of said troops, they will be there for the "foreseeable future." Can you find any reputable source that says that the US military is not spread too thin to accomplish other actions? Run away now, I would hate for you to hurt yourself doing any research or backing up any of the lunacy that you spout.
I'm merely asking questions about the statements that moon makes. I thought he should be able to back up the statements he spouts off and considers truth, but this thread shows otherwise. I'm not sure why my questioning moon's assumptions angers you. Cheer up, chap!
So, your answer to his question is that you cannot back up anything and that you were just attacking my points for no good reason and with no contrary evidence. Nice to see you can admit it.
Andy has a very good point... why don't you ever post facts and links to back up your opinions? Lots of the rest of us do, to one degree or another, and it's not based on ideology. All you and Trader_J do is ask questions and pontificate, in your usual sarcastic manner. At least Trader_J can be funny. As to the topic, Britain and France both have a long history in the region. They, and the EU, should take a lead role in doing something about the Sudan, imo. The AU is pretty much a farce, but they would likely follow their lead and provide political cover, and some symbolic troops. We could supply transport and logistics. I would like to see something happen along those lines, like yesterday. People are dying by the truckload. Keep D&D Civil!!
I didn't even post any opinions in this thread. I wanted to hear more about the allegedly well thought-out statements that moon made. I thought that since he was stating things as facts, then he could back them up with his own personal research that helped him reach his conclusions. I wanted to understand that research. He could not provide any evidence supporting his statesments, which was unfortunate because I was genuinely interested. I love it when the liberals try to gang up on people when one of their own is unable to defend himself. Safety in numbers I suppose...
You must have failed reading comprehension. I backed up my statements, which is far more than you have ever done. Both you and your brother are worthless to even attempt to have a substantive debate with. Have fun with him on ignore.
No, you're wrong. You never backed up your statements. You said that our military was spread thin. You tried to defend it by claiming that enlistment was down across all branches of the military and that most of our military reserves are committed to Iraq. No links appeared to any of this, you just spouted it off as fact. Just because enlistment is down doesn't mean that we're spread too thin. Then you tell me that only 35% of our military is committed to the war on terror, which obviously is larger than just Iraq, and which is obviously not "most of our military in Iraq", as you claimed. That proves that you are wrong right there. I've caught you before in these exaggerations, and I've caught you again. Now you put me on ignore for questioning your assumptions. Run, boy, run.
