April 28, 2006


NATO to intensify its role in Sudan's Darfur region (Nicholas Kralev, 4/28/06, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that NATO leaders have agreed to take on a more "robust" role in Sudan's Darfur region and urged other international bodies to prepare the way.

NATO diplomats said that earlier disagreements among the allies over involvement in Darfur had been resolved, but impediments remained, such as the Sudanese government's objection to a U.N. peacekeeping mission.

"Everybody recognizes that the [African Union] mission, while it has been successful thus far, is not robust enough to deal with the continued violence in Darfur and, particularly, problems that are emerging in western Darfur given the situation and problems on the border with Chad," Miss Rice said.

Cave men can't stop the Crusade.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 28, 2006 10:48 AM

Well, OJ, I think they got confused because of the difference in our cultures. At home, the Elites are in charge and the will of the Elite must be gauged before going to war. Here, the elite is always trying to catch up, more a high school faction then a group with any power. Bin Laden gauged the will of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, and people like them while he was going to school in America, and figured , correctly, they had no taste for war.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 28, 2006 12:16 PM

I don't think he ever went to school in America.

Posted by: oj at April 28, 2006 12:21 PM

I have read from three or four different stories about BL that he had gone to the Ivy League. I didn't dig any further, the Ivy League is SOP for Arab Elites, so it sounded right. That's why we had those hysterical stories about the Bin Laden family flying out of the country after 9-11 right?

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 28, 2006 12:28 PM

OBL and company gauged actual American actions, not rhetoric. Republicans are just as guilty of this - witness 1983 in Lebanon or the shameful lack of support for the Kurds and Shi'ites in 1991.

Politicians play this little game of how much they can intervene before real trouble starts on the homefront. This is because the President doesn't want to take the effort to convince the American people war is necessary, usually because he knows the people won't buy it. So he sends in the Marines on the side, hoping nothing will happen to cause real opposition as opposed to disgruntled mumbling. When the bluff is called by a foreign party, they pull the troops out because they know the American people are not prepared to accept casaulties.

Another problem is an infatuation with airpower and not appreciating the need for boots on the ground. Airpower is essentially a force multiplier, not actual force. If all we do is lob a few missiles or drop some bombs, it doesn't really change the dynamic on the ground (Airpower ideologues have promoted the supremacy of airpower since 1900 - it's only success in 100+ years is obstensibly Kosovo and that has a lot of caveats.) Therefore, our actions are ineffectual and interpreted as cowardly. This is probably the biggest valid criticism of the Clinton years.

I think Victor Davis Hanson is right in "Soul of Battle" when he claims that democracies, and America in particular, wage war best when it is done as a moral crusade done as total war for a limited point in time. Limited or compromised wars sap our strength because the people will not accept an unwillingness to do everything needed for victory.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at April 28, 2006 1:07 PM

The bin Laden family funds chairs at some universities and kids have gone here, but not OBL.

Posted by: oj at April 28, 2006 2:18 PM

1991 was a mistake but what would have been the point of staying in Lebanon? If you give them a real democracy it's a Shi'ite country. The bombers wre right.

Posted by: oj at April 28, 2006 2:30 PM

We are all waiting for the first killing of a janjaweed by a Westerner. The Africans have been waiting for, what - 3 or 4 years?

Now that Iran has blustered that it will start giving Sudan nuclear technology, it seems it would be easier to clean the place up. With Kofi's endorsement (and maybe that of lots of prominent Democrats), why not? From the recent news, it also appears Chad will be happy to provide jumping-off bases and also airfields.

Posted by: jim hamlen at April 29, 2006 1:52 AM
We are all waiting for the first killing of a janjaweed by a Westerner

Speak for yourself. While doing this would be OK, wouldn't it be a lot more efficient to decapitate the regime and then tell whoever steps forward to take over, "The slighest whiff of **** happening in Darfur and you're next!"

Posted by: Kirk Parker at April 29, 2006 4:04 AM


That would certainly be OK, but I think in this case a few flybys of an AC-130 (over the janjaweed) would do wonders for everyone's concentration.

Killing Mugabe the same night would also set an excellent example. How about tonight?

Posted by: jim hamlen at April 29, 2006 7:39 PM

You can't be 23357 serious?!?

Posted by: Mary Box at July 6, 2006 12:23 PM