Support unilateral US military intervention to stop Genocide in Darfur?

[NNguyenMD]

[cornermouse]

1. We can't afford it.

And when Wolfowitz gets done with the World Bank, the world/UN won't be able to afford it either.

[signmike]

2. We're murdering people all over the world

directly and indirectly - but we're going to stop it in Darfur?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight . . .

:wtf:

[oscar111]

3. someone has to protect the good people of our planet, whereever they

live.

What if you were in darfur?

What would you say then?

If you're not humane, you're not human.

[wuushew]

25. Actually converting the 1/2 trillion dollar defense budget to aid money

would maximize the humanitarian benefit to all of humanity. Being militarily impotent to stop genocide if viewed truly rationally should be counter-balanced by the fact that many more people could benefit from malaria research or food relief.

Our adolescent views of our values and idealism have made us too comfortable with interventionism especially of the corporate and military type.

[NNguyenMD]

4. we let Africa down near 11 years ago in Rwanda, and there's this dangerous

increasingly accepted notion that its okay to let Africans wiped themselves off the face of this planet, its not our problem.

Genocide is never okay and acceptable. The US Government and Corporate America maybe party to genocide indirectly as we speak, yes. And its important to acknowledge that reality and stop it, but as Howard Dean said it best "You don't fix the furniture when the house is on fire".

The house that is Darfur is blazing right now, with thousands being slaughtered and run off their villages by the Khartoum backed Janjaweed raiders on a daily basis.

We know that we have the resources, military, and with appropiate media attention, public will to end genocide. Its exponentially more complicated if you're talking about stopping the CIA and corporate America from committing genocide.

The troops provided by the African Union is trying to provide protection, but it needs the resources, leadership, and backing of the United States if it has any chance of stopping the government sponsored genocide in the Sudan.

[applegrove]

5. I wish the UN would go in without the USA! n/t

[signmike]

6. That's what I mean; "Someone", OK -- NOT BushCo.

[K-W]

7. The UN isnt structured to act without the US

This poll is a little silly. If the US wanted to go in, the UN would be involved. Theres no reason to believe the UN would fight the US on it.

[NNguyenMD]

10. China has vested oil interest with the current Khartoum government

and as a permanent member of the UN security council, has threatened to veto any UN resolution calling for military intervention.

[applegrove]

21. Yeah - there is oil there... big surprise eh?

[NNguyenMD]

22. not so big surprise is China putting economic interests over human ones

[applegrove]

23. Someone has to go in. I don't actually care who. But someone better

go. If the Chinese own the oil contracts then they should ****ing go in. Of course USA would not want Chinese boots on the ground. If which case than USA should go in or pay for UN to go in.


I don't know but I am getting tired of waiting.

[applegrove]

20. I know - I thought poll was funny too. n/t

[Vladimir]

8. On balance, no

Not because this is not genocide, or because all intervention is bad, but simply because no US/UK intervention could be supported at the moment (however seemingly correct the cause). A UN intervention, on the other hand, might be superficially supportable, but the UN does not have a good history of 'success' in situations such as these. Ultimately I am afraid it is up to the AU and no one else to intervene if they feel it justified - of course logistical support should be given, provided it is asked for, (as discussed by Jonathan Freedland in yesterday's Guardian article) but American or British troops on the ground in Sudan would just act as a magnet for attacks (to make myself clear, it is not the safety of foreign troops I am worried about, but the inevitable civilian casualties that would be caught in the crossfire) and would make the situation worse and not better.

[NNguyenMD]

11. I think logistical support is the best way to start, it would motivate the

AU to offer more troops and legitimize their existence as a stabilizing military force in the region.

But ultimately at least some troops will have to be sent by the US to coordinate and train the AU, and military causaulties will be expected.

[Vladimir]

12. With respect, why do you presume that the AU need training,

or indeed 'leadership', as you said in your other post? The problem with sending ground troops lies in precisely that kind of patronising rhetoric, which will be seized upon and result in the peacekeeping troops spending much of their time defending themselves and not the people of Darfour. After all, US and British troops in Iraq and Afganistan have a very clear track record of looking after their own safety first, and that of Iraqis second - what makes you think things would be any different in Darfour? The UN also has such a problem, as witnessed in Srebrenica/Somalia for example. The AU is the only organisation with any sort of legitimacy in this matter, and only the AU can ensure that any settlement eventually reached is respected long after the foreign troops have left Sudan. Of course I agree that they should be given any help that they ask for, and its fair enough to offer help also, but the final decision on what does and does not happen should rest with them alone.

I am sorry if this sounds harsh, as I do agree with you that the issue is important and the need for intervention pressing. But at the same time, if the US were to send troops in, I would have to march against it, and much of the left outside the US would feel the same way. To provide genuine help, progressives in the US must lobby for as little visible involvement as possible IMO.

PS You may wish to peruse the AU's Darfour webpage, it is most informative: http://www.africa-union.org/DARFUR/homedar.htm

[NNguyenMD]

13. You're not being harsh at all, I must admit that I am not completely

familiar with the details concerning the AU presence in the Sudan. But it is my understanding that the AU peacekeeping forces do not have a mandate to protect the African citizens in the Darfur region, and are primarily an investigative body that is undermanned, out gunned.

A legitiate peacekeeping force should be well armed and well equipped to handle military combat operations as they are interveneing in what could pretty much be characterized as a civil war between the Khartoum government and the Sudanese Liberation Army. The US can provide the resources necessary to stop government sponsored genocide. In the example of Rwanda, it was the Tutsi lead Rwandan Liberation Front that ended the Hutu Government's campaing of genocide. In Darfur it is the Sudanese Liberation Army that is trying to fight back the Khartoum government's support of the Janjaweed militias.

I say that there is little leadership involved because it does not seem like any major power has seriously taken the initiative to say, "This is genocide going on, no question about it and we're going to do what we can to help you stop it." It is a mirror image of the tragedy that occurred in Rwanda 11 years ago.

The evidence that government sponsored genocide is occuring has been confirmed by the US, UN, and AU, yet we still sit here allowing such a government to continue with the murdering of its own citizens. "Never again" was suppose to be the global response to genocide after the holocaust.

This is link is from a FRONTLINE story on the situation in Dafur, its perhaps not quite as in depth as some of the other things you've read, but the reporter who wrote it was attached with a unit of the AU and says herself that the current mandate and troop number is insufficient.

Foreign intervention is the right course of action, our logistical help and a new mandate giving intervention powers can stop the Janjaweed and Khartoum government from committing further genocide.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/sudan/thestory.html

THE AFRICAN UNION
A nascent organization representing the governments of African countries, the African Union is the only non-Sudanese peacekeeping force in Darfur. The Khartoum government has resisted the African Union's intervention, but after international pressure, finally agreed to allow the 3,000-plus troops. The African Union's monitors and soldiers, deployed to Sudan from Nigeria, Rwanda, Egypt, Ghana and Chad, have been widely viewed as a test case for Africa's ability to police itself. But less than a third of the troops pledged to Sudan were actually on the ground in December 2004, and the U.N. special envoy to Sudan has repeatedly urged that the African Union at least double its commitment of troops.
The African Union has a limited mandate in Sudan; its powers are primarily investigative. Monitors collect evidence of violations of a ceasefire agreement between rebels and the government, and troops frequently witness human rights abuses that they are powerless to stop. Their daily rounds of some of Darfur's more dangerous areas are officially described as "confidence patrols." Each patrol team comprises monitors from different African Union countries, a liaison from the United States or Europe, and one representative each from the Khartoum government, the rebel Sudanese Liberation Army, and the Justice and Equality Movement. Members of the confidence patrols are often in discord over the daily details of their mission, disagreeing on decisions ranging from what villages to visit to which reports warrant investigation. One Sudanese military envoy was caught phoning in rebel positions to his commanders, putting the very integrity of the confidence patrols in doubt.

[Vladimir]

14. Thank you for that link, it is interesting

what I meant to say, and I was unclear about it, is that any military force on the ground should be an AU military force - precisely because the AU has (I think) earned the trust and respect of the parties involved in the conflict through their wiligness to send a relatively small and badly equipped force into the area to do what they can. You'll get no argument from me that the force is far too small, that is clear. What I am trying to get across is that it cannot be right for US/UK/EU troops to go on the ground with the history (recent or otherwise) of interventions that they have. By all means logistical/harware support should be provided, but it will be far easier for all sides in the conflict to accept the peacekeeping force if it is an African one. A relevant example is Zimbabwe, where it can be argued that all the international pressure on Mugabe has not been nearly as effective in ensuring free and fair elections (well, better than the last ones anyway) as the quiet and subtle diplomatic efforts by South Africa and other African countries. That has not been perfect, no doubt, but it has achieved something at least, in that the MDC activists are largely being left alone this time around. So I think there should be a real reluctance by the West to get involved, because all too often this involvement serves only to give a hate figure for people to unite against. The AU need support, but one needs to be respectful about this too - the support should be earnestly offered, but if the AU refuse it, or wish to pursue other channels in resolving this crisis, then it is not our place to force an action on the ground. And I have to come back again to the rules of engagement we have seen used in Afganistan,Iraq etc. - why should any of us believe that Western troops in Sudan will treat the safety of civilians as more important than their own, when this has manifestly not been the case in other interventions? We cannot, in my opinion, make the mistake of supporting an intervention because in our hearts we see atrocities and we want to believe that our governments and soldiers will suddenly become the good guys they haven't been and fix things.

[NNguyenMD]

16. we're pretty much on the same wave lengths, and I think your point on

ensuring that the peacekeeping force be an African one is important, and necessary in improving the self-determination of the African nations to provide for their own security.

The most best way the US can help in this situation right now is provide logistical support (equipment, vehicles, training, intelligence) for the AU troops contingent on a new mandate allowing them to protect civilians, in all situations not just those of imminent threat. I think the Western countries are too afraid of taking a side on this issue, be it the Khartoum government or the Sudanese Liberation Front, but they should remember that no government is legitimate when it sponsors genocide.

I've really enjoyed my discussion with you, you've been very respectful and informative.

[Cuban_Liberal]

9. 'Yes', to Option #2. n/t

[LSdemocrat]

15. If our troops weren't already overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan

I would.

[CitySky]

17. um, tiny correction?

If we went in with the UN and the African forces, then it wouldn't be "unilateral," right? So answer #2 doesn't match the question?

I hope I'm reading it right, 'cause that's the one I picked. :7

[NNguyenMD]

18. yeah choice 2 is essentially "no to US only intervention", a middle ground

choice if you weren't for a unilateral US intervention. I should have been smarter about it and just but "No, only with UN or AU support"

The current AU force thats on the ground in the Sudan is only an investigative body (collecting evidence of genocide), and does not have a sufficient mandate to defend the citizens who are falling prey to the Janjaweed raiders.

[Vladimir]

19. Before bedtime, a kick for an issue that actually matters n/t

[The Magistrate]

24. Certainly, Doctor

One of the problems of the Iraqi business is that it ensures no forces are available for worthier use, in the same way that if a man has gambled away his pay-check, he cannot buy groceries for his family....

[NNguyenMD]

26. Vladmir made a very good point that the best troops to stop the killing...

are the ones provided by the AU. If significant military support could be provided by the UN, lead by the US, it would bolster the AU's abilities to stop the Khartoum government from continuing its campaign, and motivate more African nations to contribute more troops under a new mandate that would allow them to protect the citizens of the Sudan. A strong AU could do quite a bit of good in ensuring Africa's continental security.