Our guest blogger is Laura Heaton, the writer/editor of the Enough Project’s blog, reporting from Abyei in Sudan.

Achol’s face and neck were dotted with white burns from the sparks of a cluster bomb. Her daughter, one-year-old Nyibach, suffered from the same painful sores. Achol’s family, which includes four other children who went missing in the chaos of the recent attack, is from Abyei, the hotly contested region on Sudan’s North-South border.

Deploying Antonov planes and fighter jets, ground troops, tanks, and government-aligned militias, the Sudanese government’s military offensive late last month in Abyei displaced upwards of 100,000 people. Abyei’s leaders, themselves displaced along with the majority of the area’s Ngok Dinka residents, estimated that 116 civilians were killed, but the death toll is difficult to determine because the government has restricted access.

But casualties like Achol and Nyibach aren’t simply “collateral damage” of a confrontation between the northern and southern armies. According to an internal U.N. memo, the ethnic make-up of the displaced, and accounts by those who fled, indicate a campaign by the Sudanese government to deliberately target civilians, with the aim of depopulating the Abyei area of residents that identify as southerners.

No sooner had the situation in Abyei tenuously stabilized -– with the northern and southern armies facing each other on either side of the river and tens of thousands of displaced southerners receiving aid – when fighting broke out just north of Abyei in Southern Kordofan, the North’s only oil-producing state. The military confrontation reportedly arose from a disarmament campaign gone afoul. But violence has now engulfed most of the state, prompting President Obama to issue an audio statement calling for an immediate ceasefire.

With South Sudan’s independence from the North just weeks away, the northern government led by President Omar al-Bashir, notorious for its targeting of civilians based on ethnicity and use of local militias to flame local tensions, seems set on destabilizing the border area in a last-ditch effort to back the southern government into a wall. Diplomats have been clear that the recent violence won’t derail the South’s secession, but much is still at stake in negotiations between the two sides over arrangements on combustible issues such as oil, citizenship, debt, and boundaries, including the status of Abyei.

Reports mount daily of atrocities carried out against civilians from the Nuba Mountains, northerners who sided with the South during the civil war. In addition to aerial bombardments -– often with rudimentary explosives made of oil drums pushed out the back of Antonovs –- government-aligned militias are reportedly going door-to-door abducting or executing people sympathetic to the South’s ruling party. In one particularly harrowing account, a U.N. security report described smuggling out Sudanese staff in commercial vehicles because the northern army wasn’t allowing them to be evacuated.

Analysts, including those at Enough, have long warned that Abyei and the tensions in Sudan’s border states could reignite war between the North and South. But until recently, it looked as though the rival governments had concluded that a return to war was not in their interest. Now, the ferocity of the violence and the targeting of civilians in Abyei and Southern Kordofan force a re-evaluation of that assumption.

As the purely rhetorical international response to Abyei proved, public shaming of Bashir’s government accomplishes nothing. But contrary to the belief voiced quietly in diplomatic circles that the Obama administration has used up what influence it had in Sudan, there is more the United States could do to demonstrate to Bashir’s government that there are consequences for targeting its own civilians.

A statement by the Enough Project and partners issued today outlines some of the specific actions the U.S. should take to pressure the Sudanese government to step back from a full-out war.

Last month, when President Obama reiterated the long-standing U.S. policy that a negotiated peace agreement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be based on the pre-1967 borders, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his allies in Congress, and no small number of beltway journalists were inexplicably up in arms that Obama was espousing a policy that would leave Israel “indefensible” and threaten “Israel’s very right to exist.”

Pro-Israel Republicans and supporters of Benjamin Netanyahu are having a field day with a newly-released AIPAC policy memo denouncing a Palestinian call for Israel to accept a Palestinian state on 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps as a precondition for negotiations.

But asked by ThinkProgress if the memo was attacking Obama’s remarks about 1967 lines with mutual swaps, AIPAC spokesperson Ari Goldberg responded, “certainly not.” Rather, he said, the memo was intended as a criticism of Palestinians’ erecting obstacles to coming to the table: “It’s a statement that we believe that the Palestinian use of that as a condition to restart talks is — that’s what we’re attacking.”

AIPAC seems to be tip-toeing along a delicate line, but right wing bloggers and a GOP operative — and one unnamed Democratic operative — seem to clearly think the memo is a thinly-veiled attack on Obama’s framework for talks.

The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, in a post titled “AIPAC weighs in: All is now well with the U.S. approach to Israel,” wrote:

AIPAC’s memo is a rare peek behind the curtain at the discontent if not anger simmering in the pro-Israel community. That AIPAC’s membership is overwhelmingly Democratic only reinforces the veiled warning to the administration.

And Commentary’s Alana Goodman picked up a similar line in her post, “AIPAC Takes Swipe at Obama?”:

While the AIPAC memo only takes a passing swing at Obama—after all, 1967 borders with land swaps were the understood position of the past two U.S. administrations on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—emails received by Washington Jewish Week reporter Adam Kredo would suggest that both Republican and Democratic supporters of Netanyahu are seizing on the 1967 borders meme.

Indeed, Kredo received two emails, one from a Democratic operative and one from a Republican. He summarizes both emails as saying:

The Palestinians are taking their 1967 cues from President Barack Obama. It was Obama, after all, who ignited the 1967 border debate (with mutual land swaps, of course)…

The email from the Republican went even further:

“Interesting that Obama sets the preconditions on settlements and the ’67 lines and AIPAC attacks the PA for adopting them,” said the Republican operative. “You could have substituted the president’s name for Abbas’s in parts of the press release and it would have been just as accurate. So much for speaking truth to power.”

But while pro-Netanyahu Republicans and Democrats might be working to spin AIPAC’s memo as a hit on Obama, AIPAC spokesperson Goldberg actually defended Obama’s comments on 1967 borders, telling ThinkProgress:

Obama basically talked about his vision for a solution to the conflict. That’s legit, but the Palestinians are taking that and saying ‘we’re not going to talk until this precondition is met.’

While Netanyahu’s supporters in Washington are eager to portray Obama as anti-Israel, AIPAC denied that their memo’s intention was to smear the White House’s position on 1967 borders or Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security, which both AIPAC and Netanyahu have praised. So why are conservative pundits and supporters of Netanyahu continuing to beat this dead horse?

Last week, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) insulted the Iraqi government on a visit to Baghdad when he asked Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki to repay the United States for the cost of the now 8 year war. The Iraqi government called Rohrabacher’s comment “inappropriate” and subsequently kicked the California Republican and his congressional delegation out of Iraq.

Even some of his Republican colleagues are criticizing him or his remark but Rohrabacher isn’t showing any remorse. He refused to apologize in a statement last weekend and now he’s coming out on the attack. On CNN last night, contributor E.D. Hill, the former Fox News host of the “terrorist fist jab” fame, talked with Rohrabacher about the incident and appeared equally credulous at the Iraqis’ gall. “Did that kind of shock you? she asked, adding, “after all we have done?” Rohrabacher agreed and then critized the Iraqis for not being grateful for starting a war in their country:

ROHRABACHER: We spent a trillion dollars trying to free those people from the Saddam Hussein dictatorship and help them build a more democratic society. Yet now it seems there is no gratitude on the part of the people who now are in charge of the Iraqi government. And that should give us pause if we’re thinking about spending any more money or leaving our troops over there any longer. They just aren’t grateful for what we’ve done. … American people gave their lives, their children, and we expended billions of dollars, which now we’re — is hurting our economy.

Watch the segment:

Rohrabacher’s point is well taken. Americans have sacrificed much in both blood and treasure in Iraq and no one on either side of the coin should forget that. But it’s also important to remember that President Bush’s justification for launching a war in Iraq was to rid Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction, not to liberate Iraqis. And what Rohrabacher seems to leave out is that the Iraqis, both civilians and soldiers, have sacrificed too.

But Rohrabacher is right about one thing, that the financial cost of the war – which is still ongoing — is a huge strain on the U.S. economy and should serve as a reminder when U.S. officials consider having U.S. troops stay in Iraq past the Dec. 31 deadline to withdraw.

ThinkProgress filed this report from Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum scoffed at Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)’s proposal that Iraq repay the United States following the first New Hampshire presidential debate Monday.

During a visit to Iraq last week, Rohrabacher, a leading conservative voice on foreign affairs, called on the Iraqi government to repay the United States for the “mega-dollars that we have spent here in the last eight years.” After a backlash ensued and the Iraqi government asked Rohrabacher to leave the country, the California Republican still refused to back down, saying, “There’s nothing wrong with suggesting that the people who have benefited from our benevolence should consider repaying us for what we have given them.”

Following Monday’s presidential debate, ThinkProgress asked Santorum whether he agreed with Rohrabacher’s idea that Iraq ought to repay the United States for the war. Santorum, who is positioning himself as a foreign affairs expert in the GOP presidential primary, adamantly disagreed with the Congressman’s proposal, saying that it “would send every possible wrong signal that America went to war for oil”:

KEYES: Senator, Dana Rohrabacher, a leading conservative on the House Armed Services Committee* came out this week and said that Iraq ought to repay the United States for the Iraq War. Do you think that’s something you would…?

SANTORUM: I disagree with that. I think that would send every possible wrong signal that America went to war for oil and we didn’t go to war for oil. We went to war because it was in the national security interests of our country and that is a good expenditure of resources. If Iraq wants to continue, going forward, have some sort of security arrangements going forward, that’s another story. But as far as paying for what was in our interest, no.

Watch it:

Santorum is certainly no dove when it comes to foreign affairs. He strongly advocated invading Iraq and Afghanistan during his time in the U.S. Senate, and recently found himself embroiled in controversy after accusing Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), an ardent opponent of torture who was himself tortured for years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, of not understanding how torture works.

When an idea is too far to the right for even Rick Santorum, it’s time for Rohrabacher to reevaluate the wisdom of his comments.

*- Editor’s note: Rohrabacher sits on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, not the House Armed Services Committee.

As the Arab Spring continues to unfold in the Middle East and North Africa, the Obama administration handled the autocratic monarchy of Saudi Arabia with kid gloves. President Obama’s May 19 Middle East speech entirely omitted criticism of Saudi Arabia’s rights record, where the monarchy there responded to the Arab Spring by paying out cash to mollify discontent and invading neighboring Bahrain at the behest of its royals to suppress unrest there.

At some point, though, the issue of human rights in one of the region’s — and certainly the Gulf’s — most powerful countries will need to addressed. A good place to start is Saudi Arabia’s ban on women driving.

With the advent of a narrowly-focused indigenous campaign aimed at allowing women to drive in the gulf kingdom, the Obama administration faces an opportunity to show that it has a commitment to human rights in the region — even in friendly nations. Pressing Saudi Arabia, a crucial ally and oil supplier, may have costs for the United States. But the cost of having U.S. hypocrisy on full display would also be great, calling into question any proclaimed U.S. interest in advancing rights in the Middle East and North Africa.

Most importantly, the campaign for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia dovetails with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s focus on the issues. At the U.S. Islamic World Forum in April, Clinton told the audience:

Wherever we can, we will accelerate our work to develop stronger bonds with the people themselves – with civil society, business leaders, religious communities, women and minorities.

And speaking to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg for an article in the Atlantic this month, Clinton singled out the fact that women can’t drive in Saudi Arabia as a cause for concern:

When people start to say that there are certain things that women should not be permitted to do, and the only way we can stop them is pass laws, like you can’t drive in Saudi Arabia, or you can’t vote … that’s a red line, and that infringes on the rights of women. Therefore I am against it.

Having stated her desire to have stronger bonds with women in the region and her opposition to the specific laws banning women from driving, Clinton and the Obama administration should push forward with light pressure on this specific cause and wider women’s issues in Saudi Arabia.

CAP’s Peter Juul put together a helpful guide to the women’s driving campaign in Saudi Arabia and tips for pushing these ideas forward while not costing the U.S. too much. Of the five main points, the first is the most obvious: Give moral support to Saudi women campaigning and protesting for their right to travel during a pre-organized June 17 action:

Saudi women activists have already called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to support their right-to-drive campaign, saying a public statement of support “would be a game changing moment.” If the administration deems such public statements of support not possible or appropriate the least the United States can do is condemn arrests that take place on June 17 if planned driving protests do occur.

Juul’s next four fixes have less to do directly with women’s campaign to drive in Saudi Arabia, but still focus on the rights of women there. He suggests: giving a State Department human rights award to a female Saudi activist; meeting either privately or publicly with these women on trips in the region; protecting funding for the Middle East Partnership Initiative, which funds civil society organizations and supports women in politics and other civil roles; and organize a conference for Gulf women to “pool their resources and ideas on how to improve women’s rights and status in their countries.”

“In short,” writes Juul, “the United States can help Saudi and Gulf women help themselves by serving as a facilitator for a regional network of activists and politicians focused on advancing women’s rights.”