re: Darfur:
To interventionists seeking a case for so-called humanitarian intervention--often proposed and never practiced--the Darfur presents a possibility to deploy the troops free of any moral taint. It is good and evil, refugees and marauders, displaced people versus government-backed militias. Right? Right?
Clearly not. The Sudan is embroiled--and has been embroiled--in a complex civil conflict for many years. Would we plunge in, oblivious to language, culture, and indigenous folkways, which differ from tribe to tribe, village to village, region to region, and cordon off the refugee camps, putting Hummers in the way of horses. For how long? And then how do we send the displaced home? Who returns expropriated property? What is the legitimate government? What does intervention mean.
And on this point the proponents of intervention are no more capable of explaining the purpose and end-game of their wished-for police action than George W. Bush is of defining victory in Iraq. The interventionist sees a Bad Thing, and he conisders himself a Good Person, and for all its depredations and in spite of its history, he sees the United States as a Force For Good In The World, if only it wanted to be, and it is his utmost desire that the moral standing of his society be proven to him through its generous application of ordnance to Bad Guys.
I haven't totally made up my mind on the subject of Darfur, but I'm tending to think that getting the USA involved sounds like a fucking boondoggle. Anyone have anything to convince me that we should send in the troops?
