Darfur

[ChaosMage]

Given the problems going on in Darfur, someone needs to do something but unfortunately no one is committing the troops. The US might've gone were we not in Iraq/Afghanistan, but we're overextended and Colin Powell has said so. My questions are this:

1) What should be done given the current world situation, with no one willing or able to commit military forces to stop the violence?

2) If the United States were to have a call for volunteers to go to Darfur as military forces to establish the peace, would you volunteer?

3) If the US were to have a draft for the same purpose, would you try and draft dodge if a) forces were split 50:50, with Iraq and Darfur each being half draftees and half volunteers and b) If Darfur were all draftees and Iraq all volunteers?

[adamark]

I'm glad I saw this topic, I was just about to create a Darfur topic. I just saw a CBS 60 Minutes story on Darfur and I have to admit that it had me in tears.

50,000 dead.
1.5 - 2 million at severe risk
400 of the 600 Darfur villages have been reduced to rubble
Everyone is fleeing to Chad, barely enough time to bury the dead
6,000 people are killed there per month (World Health Organization estimate)

It is an black mark on the world's record that nothing is being done. I would go to Darfur as a military operator to fight for these people. I would even allow for an emergency tax hike to pay for an expedition to immediately go there NOW and help. Seeing the bodies filled me with anger.

And it's just an example like this that makes me think FUCK the U.N., they have done nothing to stop this. They're a bunch a bureacratic fools and the United States should NEVER trust its safety to such an INCOMPETANT organization. If I were president I would send a division of Marines over there to kick ass. Who cares if we're "unpopular" for it, the people of Sudan would be grateful, and ALIVE. bah....

[Feuermachtspass]

Basically, the UN's sole purpose (as far as america is concerned) is for us to appear to care about what the world thinks.

As much as I would like the US to do something about the situation, its just not conceivable for us to do so. The concept of reinstituting the draft is foolish. Today's wars are not faught by masses of troops. We no longer need lots of people to catch bullets like we did in WWI. Todays wars are faught with trained professionals. Inserting non-volunteers would only serve to lower morale and get in the way of the people who know what they're doing.

Perhaps if we were to get a bunch of volunteers to go to Darfur, they wouldn't get in the way of the pros, but we don't really have the manpower to train them, and they would be sent to their deaths.

I would not volunteer for any such thing, both because I am too young, and I don't think that such a group could accomplish anything.

I think that the only way this problem can be solved is to let the AU take care of it. We can't do it, and most of the other nations are quite frankly to wussy to do it.

[Archbio]

And it's just an example like this that makes me think FUCK the U.N., they have done nothing to stop this. They're a bunch a bureacratic fools and the United States should NEVER trust its safety to such an INCOMPETANT organization.

The logic escapes me... No one has done anything to stop this, as far as I can tell. Including the USA. And is the UN what's keeping the USA from acting? It would be extremely disingenuous to argue it is: we just have to look a little while back to see how little the US government cares for the UN's stance on anything.

The note about US safety is very telling, as an attempt to kill two birds with an unrelated stone.

[ChaosMage]

Heres my problem with whats going on in Darfur: People are dying, their government is killing them and no one gives a flying fuck.

[Robot Jesus]

You have just described half the world.

[adamark]

The logic escapes me... No one has done anything to stop this, as far as I can tell. Including the USA. And is the UN what's keeping the USA from acting? It would be extremely disingenuous to argue it is: we just have to look a little while back to see how little the US government cares for the UN's stance on anything.

The note about US safety is very telling, as an attempt to kill two birds with an unrelated stone.


we're knee deep in two wars already, which very few countries are contributing much towards. they have the resources and ethical imperative to stop Darfur, and they do not. The USA could but we're already fighting TWO WARS.

[Archbio]

we're knee deep in two wars already, which very few countries are contributing much towards. they have the resources and ethical imperative to stop Darfur, and they do not. The USA could but we're already fighting TWO WARS.

Situations not unlike Darfur have been going on during the Iraq "march to war", and I do not doubt before that. These two wars have been chosen over these possible humanisticinterventions (I'm not sure how long Darfur's thing has been going on), which, I think, can amount to much the same thing depending on how much ethical value you place on these two wars.

Since the rationale for the Iraq war has now been fully retconned into purely "humanistic" reasons, and that Iraq, in that sense, was in less dramatic mayhem that, lets say, Congo (was it Congo? Maybe I'm just being unfair on the poor nation) at the time, this just brings up how interventions (and transgressing of the whole "sovereignty of nation" stuff) have been handpicked by criteras other than ethical ones. I'm not saying they could in their present state, but I doubt they've done much to be able to, or have made any steps in that direction when they could.

In short: I don't think the "we're too busy already" really lessens the impression that what I'm witnessing is about the same as the old comic routine where some people are holding another, who flails and kicks like they wanted to go kick some other person's ass, and the only thing keeping them from doing it are the others, but when those let go... well, suffice it to say the illusion usually breaks down.

Edit: I'm in no way excusing any of the others that might be able to do something, but aren't doing anything. Also, another clarification note: this post hinges on my perception of the Iraq invasion as being a "frivolous war" of some sort. I won't pretend it extends beyond that (altough I do think that's pretty obvious).

[Sesshoumaru]

Techniquely it's three wars if you the worldwide prevalence of terrorism. Although it can be argued (somewhat succesfully imo) that it's actually just one, multi-fronted war.

PS
http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs00/bartlett.htm
check that article out (I knows it's off the main topic, but a couple people of mentioned the UN/US thing already).

[TheZeroMan]

ACtually I think the proper name for the Congo is:

The Democratic People's Republic of Zaire's Belgiumese Congo or "Congo Congo who's got the Congo?" Just wait a week and there will be a new name.

Sorry that was bad but I had to do it. It think its really unfair to soleblame the UN for not doing anything, the European Union hasn't done shit either.

Anyway... the problem with blaming or even just the UN in general is its only as powerful as we, a strong state, want it to be. If you look at all the resolutions passed by the UN the world would be some sort of perfect place, however no one really gives a shit. And when the UN tries to flew whatever muscle it has everyone slightly to the right in the US starts talking about black helicopters.

The UN has voted to end the embargo on Cuba every year for the past decade or so and we just say "Whatever".

The UN has no troops to send to the Sudan unless countries give them troops, and who really wants to go into that hell-hole? The secertary general before Kofi had the unmitigated gale to suggest the possible creation of a permant peacekeeping force under the Control of the UN and well that got him out of office.

The shit in Sudan has been going on for a while now, I read an article about in National Geographic I believe like a year ago or something. I'm happy its finally getting some sort of attention, I was suprised Collin had the balls to speak out, too bad he'll be the next Bush advisor to get the ax or quit. Ideally if we weren't occupying Iraq because Saddam tried to kill W's daddy we could put troops on the ground in Sudan because thats probably the only thing that would work. However what would stop it from becoming another Somolia? Probably nothing.

It is a double edged sword if we don't do something we get yelled at if we do do something its just neo imperialism.

Though I do remember all the allied powers getting together and making the claim to "never let this happen again" when it came to genocide.

Let's go back to being Isolationists.

[adamark]

Archbio, regardless of whether or not Iraq is justified, we are tied down in that country. It is eating up our manpower, money, and attention. Even if it *is* the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, we are there. We don't have the resources to be everywhere at the same time. That is my point. Other countries who aren't fighting any wars could easily gather together some troops and send them to Sudan.


The UN is content to sit by and allow genocide to carry on. In Sierra Leone when the RUF rebels were killing 10,000 people with dull machete blades the UN made it a point not to use the word "genocide" in their meetings because that would require them to take action. They stayed silent -> people were murdered. The only thing that saved the people of that country was actually a 60-man American mercenary unit that literally fought a war for a price and won. After that group had stabilized the country the UN forced them out and spend 50 times as much money with 20 times as many people on the ground and the UN couldn't stop the violence from starting back up.

[Archbio]

Even if it *is* the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, we are there.

But a choice was made to get into it, with full knowledge of how much the manpower could be used elsewhere, for humanistic [The word is "humanitarian", better luck next time] reasons. So depending on how much it was the "wrong war", it shows how low stopping mass murder is in US interests. Mass murder is not a new thing.

But yes, if you consider only Darfur, the US couldn't do a thing. Even if they would have (which I find doubtful).

The only thing that saved the people of that country was actually a 60-man American mercenary unit that literally fought a war for a price and won. After that group had stabilized the country the UN forced them out and spend 50 times as much money with 20 times as many people on the ground and the UN couldn't stop the violence from starting back up.

The UN can stop violence too, the hard part really is stopping it from coming back. All blaming aside, is there really usually a way to pacify these kind of situations without having a permanent occupation as a result?

[adamark]

The UN can stop violence too, the hard part really is stopping it from coming back. All blaming aside, is there really usually a way to pacify these kind of situations without having a permanent occupation as a result?the answer in that situation would have been to allow the EO to continue "mopping up" ie. killing the rest of the rebels or so many of them that they wouldn't pose a threat anymore. instead the UN chose to stop the killing (the killing of the murderers) but then they couldn;t stop the murderers from starting the violence back up again. the UN failed in every respect of the word.


But a choice was made to get into it, with full knowledge of how much the manpower could be used elsewhere, for humanistic [The word is "humanitarian", better luck next time] reasons. So depending on how much it was the "wrong war", it shows how low stopping mass murder is in US interests. Mass murder is not a new thing.The choice to go in may be shady, but if the US pulled out now a civil war could start and cause many innocent deaths, that would be irresponsible. so for better or for worse we are in Iraq. i don't understand what you're trying to say, though. do you expect the US to allow Iraq to simply collapse so we can help Darfur (a legit humanitarian purpose) when so many other countries are doing nothing? you sound like you believe the US is the world policeman.

[Archbio]

i don't understand what you're trying to say, though. do you expect the US to allow Iraq to simply collapse so we can help Darfur (a legit humanitarian purpose) when so many other countries are doing nothing? you sound like you believe the US is the world policeman.

Looks like I'm going to have to quote myself! About what the US could do about the Darfur crisis: But yes, if you consider only Darfur, the US couldn't do a thing. I agree that the occupation of Iraq is now more troublesome matter.

My point was that the US has chosen to get into Iraq (a choice was made to get into it), above whatever humanitarian causes there were at the time. And also before it, since the manpower obviously wasn't recalled from any crisis to get to Iraq).

So no, I'm not saying they should pull out of Iraq now, but that since Iraq is (you might not agree with that) a situation of their own creation that it shows an order of priority that makes the US being able or not to carry out humanitarian interventions meaningless, since it was never on the "to-do list"). It was predictable that it made them less versatile, even if for only a short time (by then, Congo was still being played out, I think. I really should look that up).

World policeman? No, but I won't get into that.

the answer in that situation would have been to allow the EO to continue "mopping up" ie. killing the rest of the rebels or so many of them that they wouldn't pose a threat anymore. instead the UN chose to stop the killing (the killing of the murderers) but then they couldn;t stop the murderers from starting the violence back up again. the UN failed in every respect of the word.

Maybe I shouldn't discuss that, since I have no idea about the specific situation, but it seems to me like the UN could have stopped the EO for humanitarian reasons. In these situations (machete genocide), the distinction between "murderer" and "innocent person that happens to belong to the same population (ethnic, cultural or political [political probably shouldn't be in there, but I'll leave it there. Editor.]) than the murderers" is more or less easy to establish, especially by a mercanry force occupied by "mopping up". They could have easily pursued with a genocide of their own, if only by accident and good intentions.

[adamark]

Looks like I'm going to have to quote myself! About what the US could do about the Darfur crisis: But yes, if you consider only Darfur, the US couldn't do a thing. I agree that the occupation of Iraq is now more troublesome matter.

My point was that the US has chosen to get into Iraq (a choice was made to get into it), above whatever humanitarian causes there were at the time. And also before it, since the manpower obviously wasn't recalled from any crisis to get to Iraq).

So no, I'm not saying they should pull out of Iraq now, but that since Iraq is (you might not agree with that) a situation of their own creation that it shows an order of priority that makes the US being able or not to carry out humanitarian interventions meaningless, since it was never on the "to-do list"). It was predictable that it made them less versatile, even if for only a short time (by then, Congo was still being played out, I think. I really should look that up).

World policeman? No, but I won't get into that.The point that the US chose to get into Iraq is irrelevant because the Darfur genocide wasn't occurring in March of 2003 when the war was launched.

Also the war does have humanitarian outcomes. Saddam was killing on average, 10,000 people per year. saddam's rule has been cut short by a number of years, and his sons will not inherit his power. on a projected scale the US may have saved as many as 100,000 people. but that is another issue which i can't summarize in this post, so i don't expect you to swallow that whole.

my other point, that i failed to make clear, is that by the US mearly continuing its presence in Iraq it is preventing a civil war for the time being, therefore it is preventing mass killings of innocent people that usually happen in civil wars, therefore the occupation is humanitarian a round-about way.

believe me, i don't like it either.

my whole point is, that france or germany or japan or russia could easily send 1,000 troops to sudan. it wouldn't take that many, even, to stop the violence, as the EO proved to the world in Sierra Leone with only 60 men and 20 million dollars.

[Archbio]

The point that the US chose to get into Iraq is irrelevant because the Darfur genocide wasn't occurring in March of 2003 when the war was launched.

It's not directly relevant for Darfur, but my point was that the Iraq war was preceded by similar humanitarian crisis, which can serve for comparative purposes: troops weren't sent for these crisis, and were ready to be sent to Iraq. If the Iraq war hadn't started when Darfur began, why would it have been considered different than the Congolese crisis (or any other one of the numerous massacre's of the world)?

my other point, that i failed to make clear

It was actually clear.

my whole point is, that france or germany or japan or russia could easily send 1,000 troops to sudan. it wouldn't take that many, even, to stop the violence

I agree with the idea that they could act. But I disagree with the idea that the only thing keeping the US from doing the same is Iraq and the UN.

[adamark]

I agree with the idea that they could act. But I disagree with the idea that the only thing keeping the US from doing the same is Iraq and the UN.Agreed. there are political and (shamefully) economic reasons preventing the US from spending the money and men to stop that genocide.

It's not directly relevant for Darfur, but my point was that the Iraq war was preceded by similar humanitarian crisis, which can serve for comparative purposes: troops weren't sent for these crisis, and were ready to be sent to Iraq. If the Iraq war hadn't started when Darfur began, why would it have been considered different than the Congolese crisis (or any other one of the numerous massacre's of the world)?I would argue that the safety of the United States precedes any humanitarian effort we can contribute to. the very purpose of the existence of the government is to protect its own citizens. so the Iraq war was humanitarian because its purpose was to protect the American people from the perceived threat of Saddam Hussein.

but i see your point and agree, too.

[Feuermachtspass]

As far as I can tell, it hasnt really ever mattered what the US does in ANY situation. The world always hates us. And, forgive me if I'm mistaken, the war with Iraq has been brewing for a long time. Even under the Clinton administration we bombed Baghdad. I don't really remember much about it because I was too young to care at the time. Saddam has had it a long time coming, and the whole "Bush is just continuing what his daddy started" is ridiculous.

In other words, this war was not decided on in lieu of Darfur. We already had it in the works.

[Archbio]

In other words, this war was not decided on in lieu of Darfur. We already had it in the works.

I could just make a one word reply and write: "So?"
I'm sorry I brought Iraq into this, and I never said it had been chosen instead of an intervention in Darfur (since basic chronology of things seems to contradict that). How long the war has been on a drawing board doesn't change anything, I think, and the arguments I made before just hinges on the idea that it was a "frivolous war". That, in itself, is another argument altogether.

The world always hates us.

Convenient thing to think, isn't it?