Saving Darfur

BBC

Surely you've seen them--commercials that sound overly critical of Bush and Condi for not taking more action to save Darfur. Although their website denies this...

The recent television ads sponsored by the Save Darfur Coalition asking President Bush to take the lead in pushing for the deployment of a UN force in Darfur are not meant in any way to “bash” the President, but rather to urge him to follow through on the good work he and his Administration have already begun. We are both cognizant and appreciative of the fact that the President has done more for the people of Darfur than any other world leader. In fact, it is because of his leadership thus far that we direct our pleas to President Bush now.

..they still come across as bashing with an arguable overtone or undertone related to Iraq. Perhaps Bush is just too radioactive to publicly praise and still get adequate attention and donations, or maybe they meant it.

The Darfur coalition is certainly a worthy cause and one the administration could perhaps give more voice to, so why don't they? Perhaps the reason stems from the fact that Sudan has long been allied with Islamist radicals and Zawahiri recently issued a declaration calling for jihad against any UN force buildup in Sudan. Take a look at the list of organizations associated with the Save Darfur Coalition and notice the lack of Muslim charities compared to the many Judeo-Christian groups represented.

The website suggests they aren't calling for a US troop deployment but rather a more effective use of the bully pulpit to pressure (or guilt) UN member states into ponying-up more troops and resources. The problem is those UN countries know very well that any "peacekeepers" they send will end up in the middle of a jihad quagmire. The EU countries can't even find it sufficient contributions to their NATO responsibilities in Afghanistan despite the clear and present threat AQ poses to their security.

We could add troops to a UN-led force but the Muslims would see this as imperialism just as they did with Somalia. We all know how that turned out. Here's Bill Frist on the Save Darfur Blog:

President Bashir says he believes that allowing UN peacekeepers in will lead to his being ousted. He believes that the US wants to overthrow him with a regime change, and the way they will accomplish is to have the UN peacekeepers come in ... and possibly indict him for genocide-related activity.

One of the current arguments against engaging Iran is that we are maxed out troop-wise. We can't afford to move any forces from either Iraq or Afghanistan in support of a humanitarian mission to save non-Muslims being mistreated by Muslims without inflaming more hatred for America, which is the biggest charge being leveled against Bush these days. If there's a diplomatic solution around this, let's hear it.

The Washington Post has a balanced article today in memory of the four year anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War. It's bound to tick off the left more than the right, but it's a clear-thinking retrospective, including this mention of Darfur:

Multilateralism and U.N. authorization are force multipliers, morally and literally; unilateralism should be a last resort. But ask the victims of genocide in Darfur whether international law and multinational organizations can always be counted upon.

Hillary Clinton employed the same rationale to explain her husband's actions in Kosovo when confronting Code Pink in 2002. We are still in Kosovo. If we go into Darfur we'll be there for a long time as well, certainly well into the next presidency.

The Kosovo comparisons are natural, as is the mention of oil. Claims are made it's a racist disregard for poor black people just like Rwanda or Katrina. The reality is Darfur is not a threat to America, which should be the litmus test for any deployment of US forces under the Constitution, and certainly in a unilateral fashion. Like many other areas around the world it's a colossal mess that needs intervention, but the cost of intervention is prohibitive. Sola Gratia.