« For The Record | Main | Hm... »
Invade Sudan?
What would it take to halt genocide in Darfur? Rather a lot, it seems. I think, though, that this sort of all-or-nothing attitude is counterproductive. If you say that 7,000 troops is desperately inadequate, you're going to wind up getting zero. Meanwhile, it seems that 7,000 troops could probably do a great deal of good.
August 6, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8342114a753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Invade Sudan?:
» Military Plan for Darfur from Outside The Beltway ™
David Englin offers a reasonably detailed military plan for putting a stop to the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. He notes that it would be much more complicated than most imagine.
While establishing a no-fly zone would be essential, it would be a mista... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 6, 2004 11:20:13 AM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2005 11:58:10 PM
Comments
Not if the Sudanese goverment opposes such a plan. It would make the sunni triangle look like a picnic. Flypaper, big time.
Posted by: j.scott barnard | Aug 6, 2004 11:19:12 AM
Kindly explain how invading Sudan is in the national interest and invading Iraq is not?
Posted by: Warthog | Aug 6, 2004 12:39:10 PM
Well, Warthog, the US isn't going to invade Sudan. If you read the article, you see that it's a combination of British, French, and AU troops under discussion.
Posted by: praktike | Aug 6, 2004 12:47:45 PM
Well, Warthog, the US isn't going to invade Sudan. If you read the article, you see that it's a combination of British, French, and AU troops under discussion.
Same question. Sudan is not an imminent threat to any Western country. The presence of British and AU troops in Iraq doesn't seem to have added any legitimacy to that adventure among the Left of center crowd.
Posted by: Warthog | Aug 6, 2004 12:59:17 PM
Well, you're talking to the wrong guy. I believe it may have been legitimate if done right. But I also believe that the way the war was packaged and sold was dishonest, which does have repercussions in terms of legitmacy.
But nobody's accusing Sudan if trying to build a nuclear weapon right now. The case is that if someone doesn't intervene, hundreds of thousands of people may day this year. That was not the case in Iraq, although Saddam did seem to have killed hundreds of thousands of Shi'ites and Kurds 10 years or so ago. And, ironically, the humanitarian problems of the past decade were partially the result of sanctions led by the US and Britain. Now, Saddam did abuse the system to further his own desires rather than those of his people, but I'd bet if you polled Iraqis a large majority of them they'd blame us, especially now that no weapons have been found.
Posted by: praktike | Aug 6, 2004 1:10:40 PM
>>Kindly explain how invading Sudan is in the national interest and invading Iraq is not?
As far as I know, no one is talking about regime change. Just a humanitarian intervention based on, hmm, indisputable facts ...
Posted by: John M | Aug 6, 2004 1:41:24 PM
Sudan is not an imminent threat to France. Therefore any French troops would be illegal. Simple as that.
Posted by: Al | Aug 6, 2004 1:44:16 PM
Sudan is in an ongoing crisis. People are dying, right now, in waves. Iraq was a crappy place, but it was stable - it wasn't in the middle of an ongoing genocide.
Posted by: JP | Aug 6, 2004 1:49:58 PM
To intervene in order to prevent/end humanitarian crisis is not the same as to invade and seize control over a sovereign nation. Not even close. There seems to be a good reason to send international force to Darfur.
As far as Iraq goes - how could it have been legitimate? There was no humanitarian crisis in Iraq at the time of invasion.
Posted by: abb1 | Aug 6, 2004 2:04:05 PM
I get it now. Spilling blood and treasure is OK when it makes the people who talk about this stuff feel good.
Posted by: Warthog | Aug 6, 2004 2:48:40 PM
Hi -
The whole problem could be dealt with by threatening France by exposing that the Sudanese government is emptying the countryside in order not to share in the largesse of payoffs for the French oil options.
If you want to see who is ruining the country there, follow the oil leases. Oddly enough, you won't find many - actually, no - US companies involved: this time it's France and Malaysia.
The whole thing is vile.
John
PS: Strange how France was directly involved with the Ruanda genocide and now in Sudan. Guess they really know how to bribe people well enough so that they do the dirty work for the French...
Posted by: John F. Opie | Aug 6, 2004 3:47:14 PM
Woops -
Let me rephrase that: by threatening France by exposing that the Sudanese government is empying the countryside in order to not share with the population there the largess of payoffs to the Sudanese government for the French oil options.
Been way too long of a day...
John
Posted by: John F. Opie | Aug 6, 2004 3:50:46 PM
John, could you try to rephrase it again, please? Still not quite clear. Maybe you could break it into pieces, like: the French do this, the Sudanese do that, and then the countryside and the population do something else. Good luck.
Thanks.
Posted by: abb1 | Aug 6, 2004 4:39:32 PM
There was no humanitarian crisis in Iraq at the time of invasion.
Why is it that the left-wing ALWAYS sticks up for Saddam?
Yeah, people were being tortured and killed every day in Iraq. But to the left-wing, not a humanitarian crisis.
Yeah, there was ongoing genocide against the Marsh Arabs. But to the left-wing, not a humanitarian crisis.
Yeah, Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. But to the left-wing, nothing could be done about it, because he did it too quickly.
I guess my question comes down to: Does the left-wing actively try to help murdering, torturing dictators, or is their sense of morality so eroded that they can't tell right from wrong anymore?
Posted by: Al | Aug 6, 2004 4:58:38 PM
psst ... Al, don't tell anyone, but the US gov't killed 300 Marsh Arabs yesterday. Was that right or wrong?
Did Iraq create Saddam or did Saddam create Iraq?
Posted by: praktike | Aug 6, 2004 5:06:48 PM
Al, don't tell anyone, but the US gov't killed 300 Marsh Arabs yesterday
I hope they double that number tomorrow and double it again the day after that and double it again until there is not a single Islamist fighter left on the planet.
Posted by: Warthog | Aug 6, 2004 5:39:44 PM
Hey Warthog, my friend,
I hope they double that number tomorrow and double it again the day after that and double it again until there is not a single Islamist fighter left on the planet.
Why is it that when Americans do that is is good, but when my dear friend Saddam does that it is bad? Is that part of the infamous "american values"?
To quote myself:
"Nobody came here. Those America losers, I think their repeated frequent lies are bringing them down very rapidly…. Baghdad is secure, is safe."
Posted by: Bagdad Bob | Aug 6, 2004 8:19:23 PM
If you want to see who is ruining the country there, follow the oil leases. Oddly enough, you won't find many - actually, no - US companies involved: this time it's France and Malaysia.
Actually, no. Number one is the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation. (There's a list here.) The French concession (if, by 'French', you mean TotalFinaElf, which is rather more multinational than that) isn't actually being developed.
Posted by: ahem | Aug 6, 2004 11:25:44 PM
Shorter Warthog:
'Exterminate all the brutes!'
Guess what, moron? 'Islamist fighters' aren't born, they're made. And can be unmade, without being killed.
Does the left-wing actively try to help murdering, torturing dictators, or is their sense of morality so eroded that they can't tell right from wrong anymore?
Hey, Al -- do you beat your wife because you feel sexually inadequate, or because you just enjoy hurting women? Or is it because someone else will beat her if you don't, and at least you let her bruises heal before you start over?
Posted by: ahem | Aug 6, 2004 11:29:40 PM
The left, having seen the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberation of Eastern Europe is bitter and angry. That is why it makes common cause with Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Michael Moore, Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden have their differences, but they have an alliance of convenience due to their common hatred of freedom.
This election is a test of the moral character of the American people. A vote for John Kerry is a vote for Osama bin Laden.
Posted by: Joe Willingham | Aug 6, 2004 11:58:34 PM
LOL, great one.
Posted by: WeSaferThemHealthier | Aug 7, 2004 1:50:54 AM
So let me see if I understand the liberal view here: it's okay to invade a country for humanitarian reasons, just so long as you don't touch the regime?
Sounds like something straight out of "right of kings" ideology.
Reminds me of liberal support for Iraq sanctions and bombing. "Do whatever you want to the Iraqi people, but don't touch Saddam!"
Posted by: Adam Herman | Aug 7, 2004 2:22:14 AM
Adam,
I think the liberal view is that ends don't justify the means and that humanitarian intervention only makes sense when it doesn't create mayhem itself. Certainly in some cases it might make sense to touch the regime, but Sudan doesn't seem to be one of those cases. And in Iraq, obviously, there was no humanitarian crisis in 2003; well, except, arguably, for hardship created by stupid sanctions.
The problem with Iraq sanctions was that the sanctions were combined with policy of "regime change", which certainly was counterproductive. The purpose of sanctions is to modify government's behavior, there has to be a carrot with a stick.
Posted by: abb1 | Aug 7, 2004 5:45:30 AM
A vote for Joe Willingham is a vote for cliché-fuelled spambots.
Adam: the Kosovo intervention hastened the exit of Milosevic, but ultimately, it was the Serbians themselves who got rid of him. There was little doubt of the legitimacy of that popular uprising, or of the replacement government.
Posted by: ahem | Aug 7, 2004 8:24:56 AM
How about sending in the 200 guys that went in to Sri Lanka(sp?)? They seemed to do a lot of good. Of that's how it was presented on the History Channel.
Posted by: Chad | Aug 7, 2004 9:57:42 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
