Hypocrisy at work / supporting genocide?

I read today that the death toll in Sudan's Darfur Genocide has passed 30,000, with 1.4 million people driven from the homes by the Jangaweed militia. A new UN Report indicates that Sudan has done little, if anything, to stop the bloodshed.

In turn, it appears that the UN Security Council is going to do little, if anything, to assist the people of Darfur. So far in this 17 month crisis, our government has done little but to deplore the massacres. The latest statement I could find from the White House suggests that Darfur is simply someone else's problem:

"The President commends the African Union's deployment of cease-fire monitors and a protection force to Darfur. We welcome the deployment of 155 Rwandan troops to El-Fasher, Darfur and the commitment to deploy approximately 150 Nigerian troops by August 30. We hope this will help improve security and create conditions in which humanitarian assistance can be more effectively provided to the Sudanese people.

As the United States has said before, the Government of Sudan must halt all Jinjaweed violence and hold accountable those responsible for human rights violations. All parties, including the Darfur rebels, must respect the cease-fire and allow the free movement of humanitarian workers and supplies."


BUT, we're not willing to back up our noble words with either military action, or with a blank check to nations that have the forces, but not the finances and/or transportation. I have not heard any big name conservative commentators or politicians of either party express discontent with this state of affairs or urge military intervention to stop the killings of civilians.

HOWEVER, this same crowd (Coulter, Limbaugh, Wall St. Journal, etc) branded anyone who opposed the IMMEDIATE invasion of Iraq during the debates of 2002 as a supporter of Saddam Hussein -- despite the fact there was no similar large scale murder IN PROGRESS. By this "logic" shall we call Bush, Kerry and the rest of the American political establishment supporters of the Jingaweed? If not, why not? Why should it be ok to punish decade-plus old crimes (Kurds, Iranians, Kuwaitis, etc) with military force and turn our backs on people dying in our midst?

Why should we ignore the UN when people WEREN'T dying by the tens of thousands, and scrupously follow every last jot of UN procedures when millions have been driven from their homes and hundreds of rapes take place each day? They may rape outdoors instead of in political prisons, but it sounds like many more are occuring in Sudan 2004 than in Iraq 2002 -- not that either country publishes reliable rape statistics.

Forgive me for being so angry about this, but I really want to know why the outrage poured out over Iraq war opponents isn't being served out to people in both parties who are content to say "Gee, that's too bad. We're sure the international community will do something meaningful one day..." while we watch the flames of genocide/mass murder consume so many of God's children.


"BUT, we're not willing to back up our noble words with either military action, or with a blank check to nations that have the forces, but not the finances and/or transportation. I have not heard any big name conservative commentators or politicians of either party express discontent with this state of affairs or urge military intervention to stop the killings of civilians."

Interesting statement. Which countries have said they would stop the slaughter in Sudan if we would just pay the tab?

Sudan is terrible and I believe at the very least we should throw a couple missiles into their capital but please don't ignore 10 years of resolutions and failed inspections in Iraq, or their own dead and dying, or their WMDs that they used to kill and maim. Just this once blame the UN, and just the UN.

is NOT what Greg suggests "at the very least we should throw a couple missiles into their capital".
Why is it always brute force that comes to mind?

To be honest, I don't know what the answer is, as inevitably whatever is to be done will cost a lot of money and manpower. But the cost of human lives...can't be measured in dollars. I think the best thing to do at present is to keep the atrocities in the forefront of people's minds and on their TVs, and hopefully help will arrive before it's too late.

The Jewish Coalition for Disaster Relief has raised funds to send people to the Dafur region. Medicines Sans Frontiers (Docs w/o borders) is there, ICRC and other NGO's are there - at least those who can get authorization from the Sudanese government which is not being remarkably helpful at times are there.

US Agency for International Development has spent more than $200MMusaid.gov>. I think two hundred million dollars is a good start and I could run several small countries on that.

We are backing up our diplomatic efforts with a blank check and we are a little thin militarily now to send troops to a civil war in the Sudan. Perhaps France or Germany could spare a few soilders. It is the same old song here Muslims in the North of Sudan vs. Non-Muslims in the rest of the country. That is why no one else wants to get involved because they don't want planes flying into their buildings, they don't want their school children taken hostage, they don't want their subways and nightclubs bombed.

If you will check my previous posting on here I have been outraged by the Sudanese problems and that it is left to the US to solve this. Sure the NGO's are going to go there, sure the UN debates it ad nauseum, but it is up to the US according to you - and apparently the rest of the world - to stop the civil war and the genocide.

Search google for france & sudan you get nothing of substance. The fifth linkinfo-france-usa.org> down the French Embassy in NY has a nice picture show of one of their diplomats meeting with turban wearing Sudanese leaders and taking a nice river cruise. A few below that notes that France opposes UNsanctions on militias accused of ethnic cleansingbbc.co.uk>. This from a country that forbid yarmulke and burqua in public schools.

Screw France, they are insane, the US will handle it as always, and no not everyone is going to be happy, but a lot more will be alive. It would be nice if some other nations had a collective conscience that extended beyond their borders, but they don't. The Sudanese government has to meet us halfway and not impose pointless restrictions on NGOs that prevent aid and assistance from being timely provided. If they want our help, and they insist that they do, then quit playing political games, stop trying to be the biggest turban wearing mufti and let the NGOs help otherwise your country will go down the toilet like all of the other Africo-Islamic states.

This has been going on for decades. The U.S. government has been aware of the persecution of southern sudanese for at least four previous administrations. Maybe if they had oil, there would be some results. Meanwhile, I don't rely on France either...I'm waiting for Ireland. Of course, they were conspicuous by their absence during WWII, so I probably shouldn't get my hopes up.

Don't be an arse, Ireland's political policies are not germane to this discussion and this is not the first time you have brought this up. Just because I am from Ireland does not mean you have to respond to my posts with a comment about Ireland and World War II. If you are a librarian please feel free to read a book or two about history and you will find out that while Ireland remained politically unaligned as a nation its people took an active part in helping the Allies in WWII. In fact the Dublin Fire Brigade went to the North during the war to help in Belfast after German bombings thus risking the Republic's neutrality to help their fellow man. More that 70K Irishmen (from the ROI) fought in the war with the British forces. More than 145000 immigrant and first generation Irish served in the US forces.

While Ireland was officially neutral as was Switzerland many Irish fought and died because of their personal abhorrence to Hitler and Nazi rule.

As you can seeeuropeanirish.com> the Irish are quite active internationally. The neutrality of Irish Defence Forces and the fact that they had never been a colony make their troops attractive as UN and OSCE peacekeepers.

So unless you want to condemn Ireland and for that matter Switzerland for their neutrality during World War II stop making comment you think will annoy me. Being Irish and American as well living and working in Florida and being a US citizen as well as an Irish citizen by birth I know the history of both countries to which I owe allegiance. I know the truth, why don't you grow up and do something constructive rather than attempting to speak about things you don't know or understand. Oh, and Trócaire, an Irish Catholic charity is spearheadingtrocaire.org> a relief effort in the Sudan.

I'd love to stay and call you an eejit, but I have to prepare for a hurricane, and the relief work I do locally - you know us Irish just trying to do our part.

I do hope you and your library come out of this second hurricane in as many weeks ok. I'm with nbruce on a comment elsewhere - be as prepared as you can and perhaps it will turn out to sea!

I do know that you have been outraged about Sudan, as has Greg, and I assume Chuck and Tomeboy as well.

When I was complaining about "conservative big guns" I was talking about the Wall Street Journal editorial page and commentators like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and others who make the consistent, constant equation:

Don't believe in preventive invasion of Iraq =
Supporter of Saddam Hussein


No Invasion = Doing Absolutely Nothing = Cooperation with Evil

By this exact same logic, I am entitled to refer to the President as "Janjaweed supporter George W. Bush" and Senator Kerry as Senator Janjaweed from Massachusetts. I'm not going to after this posting, but I think I have a point.

Out of curiousity I ran Google News and Google searches on my least favorite "lefties are traitors" crowd and found this deafening silience and refusal to condemn Americans who sit on their hands while thousands are raped and killed, and hundreds of thousands are driven from their homes:

Google News - Coulter Sudan 2 hits - neither related to Darfur
Google News - Rush Limbaugh rush limbaugh sudan 5 hits - 4 about Clinton's 1998 attack, 5th unrelated to Darfur
Google News - laura ingraham sudan - NO Hits
Google News - bill bennett sudan - 1 hit - about failed drug war like being "war on terror"
Google darfur site:opinionjournal.com 4 hits, all on point. None seem to say that people reluctant to invade Sudan are Janjaweed supporters.

I do give credit to the folks at opinionjournal.com for at least pointing out people are dying and somebody ought to do something about it.

I blame the others because they specifically invoked older massacres as a way to shame people into support for our misguided Iraq venture. If only they could get as excercised about current mass bloodbaths.

I never intend to annoy you. I just get tired of the incessant bitching about France. I also disagree with your presentation about Irish efforts in World War II (a few "gestures" made when the tide had obviously turned). I applaud the Trocaire efforts and your "doing our part" with the hurricane approaching. But when you make an "arse" of yourself, you'll get your nose tweaked a little.
Sincerely: good luck with the storm.

See now this annoys me. You don't know what the solution is but somehow your sure mine won't accomplish anything. I aleady know what your solution is, even if you don't, we've gone through it before.

Talk talk talk, people still dying, people still dying, talk talk talk, people still dying, people still dying, send in the soldiers, people stop dying, bad guys die, soldiers die, big fat waste.

My way: missiles, boom, bad guys die, people stop dying, the end.

I say lets just feed and arm those displaced. Give them a fighting chance. It's not like this hasn't happend before and it's not like it won't happen again. I know it's very cold for me to say things like this but it's true.

For the record it shouldn't happen at all but not everyone in the world believes that there is a peaceful soulution to every problem.

"Declared genocide by the U.S. Congress last Friday, Darfur’s heightened violence prompted the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution last Friday (7/30) that threatens to impose sanctions on Sudan in 30 days if its government doesn’t take action to disarm, apprehend, and prosecute the Janjaweed – and to provide access by aid agencies seeking to supply food, drinking water, and medical supplies to an estimated 300,000 displaced people facing imminent starvation." Church World Servicechurchworldservice.org> I hope the UN doesn't wait around as long as it did in Iraq. Does a threat to impose sanctions mean anything?

Thanks for this item. It's especially heartening to hear Congress actually call a genocide a genocide. Now if they will back up their words with meaningful action, or get the President to so. I'm thinking AT MINIMUM about an offer to fund an expansion of the African Union observer force in the country -- IF the force moves from simple observation to protection of villagers. Perhaps we could also offer air cover if bombers could be spared from Iraq.

People who pay attention to my postings understand I am not a fan of the UN Security Council. We shouldn't be waiting for them, since the UN had ALREADY given Sudan 30 days to stop the killings and begin disarming the militias.

Naturally, I doubt very much we'll hear the President OR Senator Kerry speak of the need for real action in Sudan. We're only the hope of the oppressed and the greatest force for good on this Earthcnn.com> when it involves countries who actively oppose our geopolitical and economic interests. There's a bipartisan consensus that dictators who content themselves with oppressing their own peoplestate.gov> are safe from our military. In fact, they can reap billions in military aid and international loans.

  That is a continuing stain on our national honor.

"My way: missiles, boom, bad guys die, people stop dying, the end."

Since the dawn of air power, people have dreamed of raining death from the skies to make their enemies throw down their arms and agree to terms. Since the dawn of air power this has failed to work. Only invading armies have compelled change. Look at history:

WWII - Germany heavy bombing fails to drive Britain from war.

Allied heavy bombing failures to convince Germans to surrender.

Vietnam - American heavy bombing failures to compel North Vietnamese surrender.

Yugoslavia Breakup - Serbian heavy bombing of Croatia fails to deter Croatian independence movement.

Gulf War I - Coalition air war of 40 days does not dislodge Iraq from Kuwait. Ground forces do so after days.

Iraq 1990s - Repeated bombings by American and British forces fail to change Iraqi behavior. Saddam claims victory in Gulf War I.

Kossovo Campaign - Not a pure air power campaign. American air campaign supported by KLA troops on the ground.

Afghanistan (past 30 years) - Heavy coalition airstrikes fail to pacify remnant Taliban elements.

Iraq (May 2003 - present) - Repeated heavy air strikes in Falluja, Najaf and other cities fail to eliminate guerrila attacks.

Air power can help, but only if backed by an effective fighting force.

President Clinton's 1998, Monica inspired, missile attacks on al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. Surely as pure a case of "My way: missiles, boom, bad guys die, people stop dying, the end" as one could wish for.

As we all know. It didn't work out that way.


Like you said "Monica inspired" which is why there was no serious intent. Other examples you listed were all out wars, in other times that we've tried we targeted military establishments only. I'd rather level their government buildings in general. In the case of Sudan its not a question of submission but of altering behavior. So far my way offers the most possibilities with the least risk and least resources.