littlek wrote:Just human life........
I dunno if anyone here is suggesting we intervene in any way other than politically or economically. But, I haven't read up.
I agree that the preservation of human life is in the interest of America, and, in my neo-con way, will further argue that so is the advancement of democracy. The latter is arguably more in the strategic interest of America than the former.
In any case, we have seen the limitations of political and economic intervention in harder cases than The Sudan. The slaughter in The Sudan will not be stopped by economic pressure, and what is political pressure if it is not based on economic and/or military threats?
Individuals who actually go to The Sudan to help the victims are admirable heroes, but let's face it, they are shovelling sh*t against the tide. This does not in any way minimize their actions, but their actions will not put a halt to the slaughter.
The ways in which the tragedy in The Sudan will come to an end are very limited:
1) The aggressors will succeed in their efforts and there will not be anyone left to rape and kill
2) The people will manage to overthrow the government
3) External forces will intervene militarily
As horrible as it seems, #1 has a much better chance of occurring than #2.
This leave military intervention.
What can be done economically to an elite ruling class that has been sucking their nation's and their people's blood dry for years? Look to Iraq for the answer. A government that is content with killing it's citizens, is not going to change its ways because the rest of the world can make it economically difficult for those citizens. There will always be enough wealth and privilege for the powerful few.
What needs to be done will not be done unless America does it, and considering the political fall out from our last attempt at intervention, what politician, Republican or Democrat, will argue that we should intervene militarily in The Sudan?
If the UN was worth anything, it would be able to mount a military intervention in The Sudan, but of course it is not.
Unfortunately for The Sudan, it never really was much of a colonial holding and therefore there are no trace sentiments originating in the 19th century that tie it to a European nation. Certainly no European nation is about to intervene simply because the slaughter of innocents is horrendous.
When horrible people do horrible things it takes horrible means to stop them - killing and maiming.
What can America do though?
We could easily mow over the current government, and that would temporarily stop the slaughter, but what would happen when we left?
It is all well and good to clamor for the cessation of the horrible acts of horrible people, but such clamor is of little value, if any.
In the past few months there were a series of TV ads by a group which claimed to be advocating an effort to stop the slaughter. Their message?
"Tell President Bush to stop the slaughter in Darfur!"
As if Bush was causing it?
As if Bush could throw a switch and stop it, but for some perverse reason chose not to?
The partisan nature of these ads was sickening, because they attempted to somehow link the ongoing slaughter to Bush.
Nowhere in the ads did the group suggest how Bush might stop the killing, and it is fairly certain that the same people behind the ads were screaming bloody murder about our last military intervention - Iraq.
It doesn't matter if the President were Bush or Kerry, Clinton, Edwards or Obama. The US is not going to do what must be done to stop the slaughter, just as it did not do what had to be done to stop the slaughter in Rwanda.
No vital interests in The Sudan or Rwanda for that matter. Human life in places like Rwanda and The Sudan are not the vital interests of America. What happens to our way of life if everyone in both countries are exterminated?
Personally, I think our national character is greatly diminished when we fail to try and stop these atrocities and that our national character is clearly a vital interest of our nation, but this is a position demeaned by Realists and Liberals alike as "neo-con."
If we do not eventually achieve a reasonable victory in Iraq, then we can look forward to the return of the Realists, the very same people who are willing to dance with the devil for the sake of stability and turn a blind eye to horrendous suffering in the saddest places on Earth.
The Liberals who cry for Darfur and rant about Iraq will, in part, be responsible, and there will be many many more tragic slaughterhouses for them to cry about. However, they can banter back and forth on threads like this and feel better for doing something about the slaughter.
