Hitchens: Genocide in Darfur draws to a close

That was a problem with Iraq, and it is a problem now. I believe a stronger leader could manage to act multilaterally. But if that isn't possible, then stop an ongoing genocide, by whatever means necessary. That doesn't mean we have to invade, and ideally we wouldn't want any sort of an occupation, just a peace keeping force authorized to take military action if need be to stop the genocide.

In Iraq waiting another 6 months wasn't a danger. In Sudan every day is a day lost. The genocide in Iraq was a decade or more in the past. In Sudan it is ongoing and further deaths because of attempted genocide can be stopped.

 

Actually the intervention in Iraq was multilateral, not unilateral. Just not ENOUGH multilateral for some people.

Well, Saddam was continuing to kill his people if not en masse then otherwise although I'm not sure what the line is between 'genocide' and mass murder.

 

What incidents at the time of our invasion are you referring to when you say Saddam was at that time engaging in mass murder? I don't have a hard time believing he was guilty of such a thing, I just can't really respond to the differences unless I know the specific incidents you are referring to.

 

I don't know specifically. He was cited by everyone from the UN on down for executions etc. That's why I said I don't know where the line is between genocide and mass murder (mean multiple murders I guess).

 

I don't know why you are bothering trying to figure out the difference, when it is so obvious. In Iraq, Bush went to the UN, they didn't get on board, so he went in with the countries that were willing to go with him. What he should have done was bow to their wishes and stick with the sanctions. In Sudan, Bush went to the UN, they didn't get on board, so he bowed to their wishes and stuck with the sanctions. What he should have done is go in with the countries that were willing to go with him. The difference in the situations is what Bush actually did. You see, Bush cannot possibly have done anything right, so whatever he did, the correct choice would have been the opposite.

 

Here is the difference that I see.

Iraq - Saddam not actively trying to wipe out an entire people. Letting inspectors do their work and waiting 6 months to find out the correct answer did not put an entire ethnic group at risk

Sudan - Currently trying to wipe out an entire people. Waiting causes more people of an eithnic group to be wiped out, and moves that entire population closer to extinction.

To me it isn't that difficult to see which requires immediate action and which was already having actions taken that limited the danger.

 

You believe he was actively pursuing genocide? What examples would you like me to read to see this.

I am not saying Saddam was a good guy and should have stayed in power. He was a brutal dictator who didn't deserve to lead the population of Iraq. He had in the past been guilty of horrible crimes and wholesale slaughter. At that time the U.S. stuck up for him and actually prevented the UN from going after him. I didn't like it then, and I'm glad he's gone now.

That doesn't change the facts that he wasn't actively pursuing genocide at the time of this war. If you have facts to the contrary I would love to see them.

 

Difference is, in Sudan there was a pressing need for immediate action (genocide). If we had not attacked Iraq, a country that was not an immediate threat and could not have been for more than a decade, we would have had the ability to use the military to intervene in Sudan.

Yet more unintended consequences of this ill-conceived war.

 

Saddam AVERAGED killing 20-30K every year. The vast majority of these killings were early in his reign when he was consolidating power and while he enjoyed the support of the US.

Using average numbers to claim that Saddam was regularly killing 30,000 of his own people every year is dishonest. It is statements like this that lead to me believe the statement in your sig. If you want to be taken seriously, stop being dishonest.

 

Unilateral action would have been justified in this case since there was active genocide in process. Iraq was not and could not have been a threat for more than a decade and as such, there was not a justification for war.

 

Again, in Iraq, there was not clear threat to us and no ongoing killings. There was no justifiable reason for going to war with Iraq, whereas Sudan had genocidal militias roaming the countryside, which is justification for an attack by any countries willing to get on board.

 

That was a very clear and accurate statement. The only "intellectial contortion" I see is on your part. Saddam was not engaged in genocide in any way, shape, or form when we invaded. Had he been, I would have supported the invasion fully.

Sudan is a very different story. If you cannot see the difference, then your blinders are even bigger than I thought.

 

I have no idea how this has anything to do with Iraq.

More in common with Rawanda, perhaps.

Both shameful. Neither partisan.

This isn't a GOP / DEM issue. It's an old world / new world issue.

 

Well, for starters, one involves going to war and one does not. I'm not sure how Iraq and Sudan are even slightly related.

If you went to the UN and proposed that US forces go in to stop genocide in Sudan, I don't think you'd have gotten much opposition...

 

You don't think militarily stopping the regime and their militias from committing genocide involves war?

What do you base that conclusion on? China has worked to stop strengthening of sanctions, much less intervention.

Mainly on the issue of unilateralism vs multilateralism. Of course, as I've pointed out the intervention in Iraq was multilateral, but I believe people mean 'through the UN' when they say multilateral.

 

Over a half-million Iraqis died between the end of Gulf War I and the beginning of GWII. That averages out to about 50,000 per year. How exactly is that not an ongoing mass killing. Also, though I have not seen any specific demographics on this, I can take a guess that the vast majority of those deaths were of the Shi'ite majority and not the privleged Sunnis that were running Iraq, so it could probably be classified as genocide. That Saddam was not continuing in his mistreatment and murder of Iraqis is a misunderstanding, a shifting of blame, or an outright lie.

 

On the first issue, no I don't think it involves war. These leaders in Africa are addicted to power. The threat of force, rather than the use of force, has a whole lot of impact on them.

On the second, I'm not really sure of China's reasons, although I imagine they involve oil. However, that's very easy to do when this is a backburner issue. It's much harder to stand against genocide when its at front and center of world opinion.

On the third issue, i know this wasn't addressed to me, but multilateral coalition often refers to an actual group that has the support of a significant portion of the world. In Gulf War I, the entire Middle East and other regions directly affected by the war were both behind the effort and participants in the effort. This time around, those countries were not. Our good ally Turkey wouldn't even let us stage operations from their territory. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia had to be cajoled into allowing us in. And every single one of the countries that actully were on board, outside of the US, Australia and Israel I believe, did so against the wishes of their populations - that's not a good long-term strategy in democratic societies. That's very different than what we saw in GW I.

 

Like in Somalia?

Like in Bosnia? Russia declared flat out they would veto UN action in Bosnia. China has already said no to increasing sanctions in Sudan. What possible indication is there that they would allow UN strikes? An ultimatum has to have some expectation of probability if it has any chance of success. Even then its hit and run. Didn't work in Bosnia or Iraq or Afghanistan.

Don't think that's true. ASEAN is a multilateral institution and most of the world's population doesn't even know what it is. So is APEC, the OAS, the AU, the IWC, IDB, SCO, CSCE, & NEACD. I don't think any of those meet your test of the public 'knowing' or 'supporting' them. The intervention in Bosnia was not exactly wildy popular either with demonstrations about US/UK and NATO 'war crimes' breaking out - yet that was multilateral, right? I am not saying the first and second coalitions were the same, but let us also not kid ourselves. China was against the first Gulf War and Russia very uneasy with it. We bribed Egypt to join under the promise of more aid and Syria to join by promising not to prosecute their links to terrorism. Saudi Arabia joined of course but they were looking at Iraqi tanks across the border. It was some of those same countries that ensured Saddam would stay in power, so claims of self interest don't point in one direction. Those are but a few examples that get glossed over when one compares a wide gulf (no pun intended) between the two coalitions.

 

Saddam was partially responsible for those, but he does not bear sole responsibility. There were other ways besides war to those particular deaths. They could have even ended while Saddam was still in power.

I am not advocating Saddam staying in power or even saying that the sanctions should have been lifted. But if the UN sanctions played a part in those deaths, then it is inaccurate to say Saddam was committing an ongoing genocide. Yes he was corrupt, and stealing money that should have gone to the people of Iraq. That is wrong, and he does bear some responsibility for those deaths. But that responsibility is shared.