Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?
Furthermore: just who would we attack? The government denies any involvement with the militia, while clandestinely providing arms. If we move in and take down the government then we'll just be accused of shooting the wrong people. If we take down the militias, then once we're gone the government will go back to it.
Furthermore, there's no threat to the US. No threat at all.
Sounds self-involved, doesn't it? But that's what people keep telling me about Saddam Hussein, that he was no threat, and that we have no business sticking our nose's in the world's affairs.
Basically, that two-edged sword of isolationism means ESPECIALLY not intervening in places like Darfur.
Kind of a painful thing to say, huh? It gets worse.
While the Sudanese government is partially implicated, all of their neighbors have an equal interest in maintaining the genocide. If they aren't actively helping, they're turning a blind eye to it. Sure, you may here the token protest here and there, but there's no real pressure.
The entire situation stinks, IMO. I would rather we went in and did something. But Americans don't want to get involved in a messy, bloody war where there's no benefit to them. Americans don't want to see American soldiers die for somebody else's problem. Most of them are being intractable about American's dieing for a cause that is EMINENTLY more our problem. We have protests, for Pete's sake, about the level of interventionism that kicks in for a situation like Iraq! How much more so for intervention on a truly majestic, truly imperial scale!
The UN, as ineffective as they are, are the only hope they right now. God help them.