Sometime in the past year, The New Republic examined what exactly an international intervention in Darfur might look like. Their estimate was quite a bit more daunting than, say, Nick Kristof’s. First we’d have to establish safe havens and safe corridors for refugees against marauding militias, which means ground troops. And we’d have to neutralize Sudan’s air force (which has been used against villages and could also be used against foreign troops), which means control of air space and bombing air defense targets — which also means collateral damage. And since the UN Security Council would never sign off (China would veto, and Russia might also), this action would have to be undertaken by some other grouping.

So we’ve got basically a full-scale invasion, plus an indefinite occupation and/or regime change, implemented by an ad-hoc coalition of nations without UN approval. Sound familiar?

Of course it might turn out to be easier than that. But given the stance of the Sudanese government, probably not — and as we all found out in Iraq, we need to be prepared for the worst case before undertaking to go in at all.

Mipe, I don’t doubt your intentions in keeping this issue on the front burner. It’s an ongoing travesty that the world will not address this atrocity in full view. But my question is, how many of those who insist we must do something about Darfur are prepared to see the US mount something that looks quite a bit like the invasion of Iraq? And out of that group, how many supported the actual invasion of Iraq? I count myself in both groups, but I suspect I’m in the minority.

“In the name of national security, we need to address the underlying contributors to the spread of global terrorism ”

As Justin Raimando notes:
“In today’s constricted political “debate” – especially when it comes to foreign policy – only two flavors are allowed: right-wing neocon and left-wing neocon.”

Time to stop the partisan bickering and ideological games and start recognizing our responsibility to our neighbours in Africa.