May 2, 2006

OKAY, I'LL JOIN THE DECENT LEFT IF YOU PROMISE ME NO ONE WILL GET HURT:

The Options for Darfur: Liberal hawks, don’t do unto Darfur what you did to Iraq (Mark Leon Goldberg, 04.26.06, American Prospect)

[S]hould Khartoum continue to support the their proxy janjaweed militia, disrupt humanitarian access to Darfur, or launch aggressive military campaigns in Darfur, the United States should reserve the right to launch cruise missile or airstrikes against Sudanese military instillations. The regime in Khartoum values its fleet of converted Antonov transport jets above human lives. So why not threaten the government where it will hurt? The leaders in Khartoum are not bloodthirsty thugs for the hell of it. Rather, they devised a counterinsurgency strategy of genocide precisely because it was the most practical way to suppress a rebellion. It would not take much to make that strategy prohibitively expense for Khartoum by taking out a few dozen aircraft.

I do not propose airstrikes with great enthusiasm. They could be problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which is the potential that Khartoum follows Slobodan Milosevic’s lead and responds to an aerial assault by accelerating their ground war. But airstrikes would be a last resort, and unlike Milosevic, the regime in Khartoum is more likely to fold under the simple threat of such attacks.

The question, of course, is whether the United States seeks Security Council support to legitimize such airstrikes. The Chinese will most certainly object. To this, the Kosovo clause should apply: All available diplomatic options would have been exhausted and the urgency of the situation justifies the circumvention of a Security Council vote. This may put me in common cause with the hawks, but any airstrikes should come with the tacit understanding that no American troops will set foot in Darfur.


Getting folks like this to sanction what even their own consciences require is like pulling teeth. And when they pussyfoot about like he does here it just leaves them out of the serious conversations.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 2, 2006 2:02 PM
Comments

Yah, it brings to mind the Roman parable about grasping the nettle.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 2, 2006 2:12 PM

This is simply amazing.

When I was young I used to to assume the Left had a sense of morality that was fairly similar to the Right but that the 2 sides differed on how to achieve moral ends. Now that I am older I realize the left just plain hates the West and judeochristian values. It is also extremely illogical and impractical as demonstrated by this article.

Posted by: JAB at May 2, 2006 2:36 PM

"...any airstrikes should come with the tacit understanding that no American troops will set foot in Darfur."

This is worse than useless. It is amoral and disgusting. He is stating rather openly that intervention in Darfur is not worth a single American casualty. So why should members of the military be expected to do anything (i.e., put themselves in danger--which he says is not worth it) just so some pathetic, hypocritical, morally bankrupt magazine writer can brag at fancy dinner parties that he's in favor of "doing something"?

Posted by: b at May 2, 2006 2:45 PM

The use of airpower as a substitute for actual action is ridiculous. It's a cheap out that people can use to salve their conscience while not promoting anything that will actually impact events. "b" nails this attitude accurately. "Drop a few bombs and maybe the problem will go away" is precisely the type of half-assery that makes people contemptible of the US.

People need to know that if you want military intervention you must agree to 2 things: 1) have boots on the ground and 2) war means violence and killing people.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at May 2, 2006 3:18 PM

Hey, Mark Goldberg supports taking out Iran's nuke programme by force !:

All available diplomatic options would have been exhausted and the urgency of the situation justifies the circumvention of a Security Council vote.

Posted by: Noam Chomsky at May 2, 2006 4:04 PM

And yet the Left has no problem with breaking eggs to make an omelet......

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 2, 2006 4:44 PM

The problem is the omelette they want to make.

Posted by: oj at May 2, 2006 4:48 PM

I know. Just poking fun at how long the Left has gotten away with that 'bait and switch'.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 2, 2006 5:06 PM

As I have commented in the past on the situation in the Sudan, the best way to solve the problem is hire a firm that is set up along the lines of Executive Outcomes and allow them to handle it. There is a company based in N.C that probable has the ideal mix of experience and manpower to do it, Blackwater USA.
Executive Outcomes proved time and time again during the 90s in Africa what a highly disciplined group of professional soldiers can accomplish. Once you get past the moniker of mercenary, which brings visions especially to those of the left persuasion images of Bob Denard and Mike Hoare the latter who actually ran a pretty tight ship during the Congo crises. You end up with a force that could deal with the crisis. Properly supported with clandestine airpower and logistic support a private group could bring and end to the genocide in the Sudan, offer plausible deniability to waffling western governments and put down another islamofascist action.

Posted by: Billmil at May 3, 2006 4:55 AM
« CAN YOU BE BOTH A CRACKPOOT AND MAINSTREAM?: | Main | HAS THERE EVER BEEN A COMMUNIST DICTATOR THEY WOULDN'T GROVEL BEFORE? (via Rick Turley): »