This is just pointing out the difference between Iraq & Darfur.

Our greatest difficulty as a super power is waging whether to use our power for national security, nation-building (aka future natinal security aka imperialism), or global issues (aka humanitarian missions aka passive imperialism).

I find it far easier to perform a humanitarian mission, than national security and far easier than nation-building. (Yes this is a wimpy, feel-good mentality for our foreign policy and military status) Iraq falls somewhere between NS and NB depending on who you talk to (this was NOT a humanitarian mission despite the Admin’s revelations).

But any venture taken has risks. Darfur fits alot closer to Mogadishu than Belgrade. With China involved with the Sudanese govt, this must be a UN mission, involving the Chinese and the Sudanese govt – sending blue helmets in against the Sudanese govt is just asking for body bags.

In other words, there is little to nothing redeeming about Darfur, maybe public (global) opinion can get the wheels greased and getting involved will occur shortly and be short-lived. One can dream.

No regime change.
No nation building.

Blue helmets ala Belgrade.

Can you say Mow-Gah-Dee-Shew.

Its a dangerous world out there.