We probably should, since the UN is failing so miserably, but then Bubba decimated the military so bad (as was already said) it’s impossible.

How is this Clinton’s fault? Yes, he failed to get Bin Laden, we all know that. But Reagan built us up to a 500 ship navy in his term. Bush has been in office for 6 years, and Rumsfeld was downsizing the military the entire time. Sorry, it’s time to blame Bush and his PC ‘religion of peace’ rhetoric.

91Veteran on April 11, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Shoulda coulda woulda.
It’s been over 6 years. Bush has had plenty of time to rebuild.

Didn’t think so. Punks.

“Let’s stop the bleeding,” Biden said. “I think it’s a moral imperative.”

OK, Mr. Biden, how about “stop the bleeding” on the US borders?

Chickenhawks.

Shouldn’t we be more proactive and aggressive in cutting off future flash points, training grounds, etc?

SouthernDem on April 11, 2007 at 8:53 PM

We probably should, since the UN is failing so miserably, but then Bubba decimated the military so bad (as was already said) it’s impossible.
Bosnia started in 1995 o5 1996 if I recall correctly. I still remember hearing Congressmen saying they would be home by Christmas a year after they first went in.

As for Biden…did he plagiarize this position?

Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 9:07 PM

Well stated. I agree with everything you just said.

A second constraint is the vaunted international community. China could stop the genocide tomorrow by turning the screws on the Sudanese government to force them to stop it. But it won’t. It might even actively oppose anything we would do in Darfur. The French could have a powerful effect too, but they don’t seem too interested in doing much. Ditto Sudan’s neighbors.

A third constraint is the Democrats, who misunderstand the purpose of the military. They seem to think it’s an armed Peace Corps rather than an instrument of national security and foreign policy. This misunderstanding leads them to weakness: The first US casualty in Darfur would flip a switch and you’d have the same Democrats who favor intervention today, oppose it. That’s their MO.

If the world were perfect, I’d favor intervention in a heartbeat. But you have to intervene with the world you have, not the world you want. And the world we have sucks, pretty much.

Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 8:12 PM

So are you suggesting that if we could militarily intervene in Darfur while keeping Iran at bay and hunting Qaeda that we should?

Believe it or not, I’m not for any kind of unilateral move into Sudan. (It’s a job for the UN the EU, truth be told. So that’s pretty much doomed.) I’m just arguing that the spread of Islamism and Sharia is equally dangerous in Africa as well as the Middle East. Shouldn’t we be more proactive and aggressive in cutting off future flash points, training grounds, etc?

The Muslim in-fight that’s so good for us brought us 9-11. Unless you missed the fact that al Qaeda’s war aims include displacing the Saudis on their way to setting up the next caliphate.

The MidEast’s Muslim in-fight hasn’t been and won’t be confined to the MidEast. If it was, there wouldn’t be a civil war in Sudan, for starters.

Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 8:36 PM

I’m confused: how did a Sunni/Shia war bring us 9/11?

Bush certainly hasn’t been quiet about Darfur… just ignored, That’s surely because the dems and their complicit media want Darfur to be their issue. As I recall, Bush was one of the first people to attach the word genocide to what has happened there, and he even did it at the sacred altar of the UN, right? Meanhile, on most news outlets, crickets chirped.

The MidEast’s Muslim in-fight hasn’t been and won’t be confined to the MidEast. If it was, there wouldn’t be a civil war in Sudan, for starters.

They’re both nasty snakepits, but some snakepits are more vital than others. It’s harsh, but it’s a fact of the world. Iraq has major national security implications, not just in the “fight them there so we don’t here” context, but in the broader context of what a bugout will do to US credibility.

What about British credibility when they “bugged out” in the 1930s? They weren’t politically correct and they still couldn’t subdue those nuts.

A Muslim in-fight is good for us. The Arabs will have to deal with the ‘rafidite dogs’ (Iran) instead of funding their next jihad against us.

Start with the easy part: what sort of plan would you have for pacification of the warring parties? How would the troops be used? How open ended would the commitment be? Do plan on resettlement of the ~2 million christians, and ~10 million animists? Where will these people go? What if they refuse to leave their ancestral homelands? Are you proposing partition of the country? What is your plan for when the parties refuse to abide by the agreements?

Simple. Kill the Islamists. Keep killing them until they head back to Arab countries. We’ll try displacing the Islamists for a change. The Darfurians stay where they are.

But for you to allude that a brutal Islamist takeover of one country is less significant than another doesn’t jive. OK, Iraq has oil. You say “something to do with national security” and the only supporting argument I’ve heard about that is “fight them their so we don’t fight them here”.

They’re both nasty snakepits, but some snakepits are more vital than others. It’s harsh, but it’s a fact of the world. Iraq has major national security implications, not just in the “fight them there so we don’t here” context, but in the broader context of what a bugout will do to US credibility. Our allies and enemies alike will never look at us the same way again, and that will have profound effects on the world. Additionally, if we can destroy most of al Qaeda there in Iraq and keep Iran at bay, that will have profound effects on the region and the course of Islamism. Right now there are two powers vying for what amounts to supremacy in the MidEast–us and Iran. The region is too vital to let Iran win.

Sudan has none of those broad implications, at least not yet. Morally Sudan and Iraq might be rough equivalents (even though Iraq’s potential for genocide is probably larger), but strategically they are clearly not even in the same league. It’s not even a close call.

Of course, now that I’ve argued all this, the Bush administation will go ahead and put troops in Darfur and everything will be peachy until one of our troops gets shot. Then all bets are off.

The same CIA that can’t tell the difference between Sunni and Shia? That didn’t read the history of the British invasion of Mesopotamia before we went in? Sorry, I’ll stick to JihadWatch

I was actually going to add a number of things, but got a bit sidetracked.

Start with the easy part: what sort of plan would you have for pacification of the warring parties? How would the troops be used? How open ended would the commitment be? Do plan on resettlement of the ~2 million christians, and ~10 million animists? Where will these people go? What if they refuse to leave their ancestral homelands? Are you proposing partition of the country? What is your plan for when the parties refuse to abide by the agreements?

And most importantly, how will you prevent the peace brigades from demanding that we withdrawl as soon as we a) take casualties or b) things don’t go according to plan.