Biden Calls for Military Force in Darfur

[pampango]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a Democratic presidential candidate, called Wednesday for the use of military force to end the suffering in Darfur.

''I would use American force now,'' Biden said at a hearing before his committee. ''I think it's not only time not to take force off the table. I think it's time to put force on the table and use it.''

Biden, of Delaware, and other senators expressed impatience with the lack of progress on Darfur four years after civil strife broke out between Arab and black tribes in the western Sudanese region.

The Bush administration has always rejected use of military force in Darfur, partly because of a possible outcry, particularly in Muslim countries about hostile U.S. action in yet another Islamic country on the heels of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Sudan.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

---

Biden is the first prominent politician to my knowledge who has proposed unilateral military intervention in Darfur.

[Donnachaidh]

1. And where exactly are these forces to come from Joe?

Can you pull them out of your ass? :sarcasm:

[KamaAina]

19. No, but he could pull them out of Iraq

if he were President. So, come to think of it, could any other Dem, so VOTE DEM!

[brokensymmetry]

2. Haven't we got enough trouble?

Can't we try diplomacy, if only for the
novelty?

Let's bring the troops home for awhile.
Like - forever.

[still_one]

5. They have been trying diplomacy for years, and about a million+ people are dead

Kartoum will hear nothing of it. They won't abide by the UN resolutions, and the one party that has the most influence in that region is China, and they won't do anything about it

[brokensymmetry]

11. So we send in the troops?

We get a bunch of them killed. More hurt.

No. I will never support that.

[IA_Seth]

14. What would you support?

Do we stand by while hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, more are killed?

[FiveGoodMen]

15. We'd be in an infinitely better position to do this if we'd stayed out of Iraq & Afghanistan

[IA_Seth]

17. I understand that...

The availability of troops certainly has to be considered, and no one wants to send troops to fight in a battle they can't win after having been through so much...but if this cause is not worth fighting for what is?

Where is the outrage for all of the deaths?

[FiveGoodMen]

18. Yeah, I don't think we're really disagreeing.

If there's less outrage over the deaths (at least here at DU) it may be because our own government isn't directly responsible for them (far as I know). I tend to get madder when we're the bad guys. But that's not to belittle the problems elsewhere at all.

Still, this is one more lesson in why not to send troops where they aren't needed: they won't be available when they are needed.

[heliarc]

28. Iraq is an entirely different situation

Iraq was a stable albeit dictatorial regime that posed no threat to the US or the outlying regions. We quickly turned it into a quagmire. Darfur is a situation that is dire, out of control, and can't get any worse. My only worry is that now is too late to send in troops and improve the situation if possible. Also, the Janjaweed are a tangible target, much like the republican guard was to start out with. If we can delineate clear goals to disable the janjaweed fighters and pressure the sudanese government into protecting its people (all of them), than perhaps it is a battle that is winnable... Iraq was significantly more complex to win since first you had to depose a sitting regime and replace it with a functioning government.

[pampango]

21. Great. Those being slaughtered are "only" Africans, heh?

Wouldn't want to endanger any of our golden boys and girls to save a few hundred thousand Africans. Better that we stay far away and talk the problem to death. I am sure the Sudanese government will start listening soon - perhaps when there are no more Black Muslims left in Darfur.

[youngdem]

3. Typical Joe Biden comment. Coming from his ass. Where do we get these soldier, JOE?

Fucking idiot.

We don't have any extra soldiers, Joe. Maybe you should pay attention to the two wars we are currently losing and the two other wars the Chimperor is trying to start before you obligate our non-existent forces to yet another continent.

[acmavm]

4. Is Joe gonna suit up? Is he going to make all the eligible and

fit members of HIS family suit up and hit the dunes?

I thought not.

[jberryhill]

20. I guess you are not aware

That Joe Biden is one of the few elected representatives in Washington who does indeed have a child in active military service.

You thought wrong.

[acmavm]

25. And for that I feel stupid. Is his kid in Iraq? For the fifth time?

[DemoTex]

6. Watcha sippin' Joe? Black-water?

[bemildred]

7. Negroponte to Sudan: no ultimatum on Darfur

US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte leaves April 11 for Sudan, where the State Department says the Khartoum government can expect new sanctions if there is no movement on a long-delayed expansion of international peacekeeping in Darfur. But State officials also made clear they are not saying Negroponte is delivering an ultimatum to Sudan over the issue. Negroponte's North Africa mission will later take him to Chad, Libya and Mauritania. (VOA, April 11)

South African President Thabo Mbeki has already arrived in Khartoum, where he is expected to press President Omar al-Bashir to accept UN peacekeepers in Darfur. (Mail & Guardian, April 11)

Meanwhile, the Darfur conflict is only spreading. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees reported April 10 that Janjaweed militiamen killed up to 400 in raids on villages across the border in Chad, leaving an “apocalyptic” scene of mass graves and destruction. The attacks took place March 31 in the border villages of Tiero and Marena. (AP via NYT, April 11)

We view all the diplomatic efforts—especially those by Washington—cynically. The tip-off is the weasily "no-ultimatum" position, designed to make Washington look tough while doing nothing to place real pressure on Khartoum. Another tip-off is the State Department's ongoing equivocation about whether the Janjaweed's four-year campaign of mass murder constitutes "genocide."

http://www.ww4report.com/node/3587

[Catfight]

8. Bush could never do what is right, just what is prosperous for his oil tycoons. nt

[pampango]

10. Can we predict what is good for his oil tycoon buddies, before

he does it? Or can we only judge that after the fact?

Sudan has plenty of oil. Do Bush's oil tycoon buddies want him to put troops into Darfur or keep them out, in order to profit from Sudan's oil reservoir?

[MasonJar]

9. Darfur is the place that troops are warranted, but thanks to dingbat

we have no troops to send. I went to a lecture by George Clooney's dad after the two of them risked danger to go to the region. It was quite telling. Diplomacy can not work with those barbarians.

[Mudoria]

12. Let the African Union handle it. I wouldn't

send one member of the US military there for any reason. Wouldn't have sent them to Kosovo either for that matter.

[originalpckelly]

13. Isn't the problem of Iraq that we sent Americans to solve an Iraqi problem?

People need to learn to be responsible for themselves. Why aren't these people in Darfur fighting back? If it's a lack of weapons, then I'm all for sending help, because that's the kind of help we got from the French during our revolution. However, these people must take their lives into their own hands and be independent and take of themselves. If they cannot do it now, then another awful group will come along kill them en masse. It would be just as immoral to send our soldiers to fight for them, as not doing anything about Darfur.

[Benhurst]

22. No, we sent Americans to Iraq to steal their oil and set up military

bases to replace the ones we were losing in Saudi Arabia.

[IA_Seth]

16. I agree.

This would be a just cause, a cause of true freedom. Unlike wars for oil, vengeance, and posturing, this war is one that I would join to fight.

[OKthatsIT]

23. JOE BIDEN HELPED DESIGN THIS WAR.

HE HAS BEEN ON THE DOD COMMITTEE...AN MGETS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM BANKS AND MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

[SayWhatYo]

26. LOOK CAPS LOCK!!!!

[President Kerry]

24. It was a shameful stain on the UN, and just about

every powerful nation when they didn't intervene in Rwanda in '94. What's happening in Darfur is no different. I would support an intervention there, but thanks to our incompetent pResident it's impossible. there's not even National Guard left here for times of disaster like Katrina.

[fujiyama]

27. Maybe he shouldn't have supported sending troops to Iraq then

I sometimes think politicians don't understand the concept of finiteness - whether it's with money or troops. Everything is unlimited. Running out money? Just print more of it (or borrow more that you don't have)! Running out of troops? Just start drafting people! Yeeaaaaa!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

29. A third Crusade?

Afghanistan and Iraq aren't enough? Now we go against the Islamic government of Sudan?

We can't just pull our forces from Iraq and send them to Sudan. We need to bring them home.