Celebrities, Activists to Rally for Darfur
WASHINGTON Apr 30, 2006 (AP)— Actors, athletes and activists concerned about the atrocities in Sudan’s Darfur region are joining politicians and religious leaders in urging a greater U.S. role in ending what the United Nations says is the world’s worst humanitarian disaster.
After years of urging Bush to end the war in Iraq by withdrawing troops, peaceniks now urge him to end the war in Sudan…by sending troops. How long before some brilliant observer suggests there is no contradiction, we can kill two birds with one stone by simply “redeploying”. Murtha was right all along!
The fact that Sudan has oil and a UN resolution against it does not matter to the pacifists. The fact that Sudan had nothing to do with 9/11, has not used WMDs, and is not building nuclear weapons does not matter to them either. They say we should send troops to stop the horrible human suffering. How do they square this with their positions on Iraq or Iran? Nobody’s asking and they’re not saying.
That the violence and killing going on in Sudan is the inevitable result of ongoing jihad aided and abetted by the government, that it is a haven for Islamist terrorists, and that bin Laden recently warned away meddling Crusaders doesn’t matter to the pacifists either. For them it would normally be wrong to do anything bin Laden might displease. That would make more terrorists!
So why is Darfur an exception?
Maybe the pacifists don’t fear angering the jihadis because they don’t recognize the jihad. Maybe because they think the violence in Sudan is “Muslim on Muslim”, “Arab on Black”, “North vs South”, or the ever popular catch-all "it’s just too complicated" to pass blame. Maybe they’re not aware that the violence has raged on for years and is no longer mostly Muslim on Christian because the Christians have been mostly killed or scared away. What do they imagine causes genocide? Could it be the expected outcome of a war against infidels and polytheists?
Nah.
Not long before we hear “Bush lied about genocide in Darfur!” and “We’re losing the quagmire in Darfur!”
The difference with Darfur…
No regime change.
No nation building.
Blue helmets ala Belgrade.
Can you say Mow-Gah-Dee-Shew.
Its a dangerous world out there.
Those are good reasons to go into Darfur?
Who said anything about citing good reasons to go?
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.