So how can the Hollywood types be out there calling for action? Said actor George Clooney at a rally:
"This is in fact the first genocide of the 21st century, but there is hope: all of you," the actor said. "Every one of you speaking with one voice, every one of you."
Sure, speaking is nice. Even with one voice. Very choreographed and inspiring to the listeners, that it is, no doubt. But unless the "all of you" that Clooney is speaking to includes the entire 82nd Airborne Division, I seriously doubt their voices really matter to the marauding government-sponsored militias that are carrying out that first genocide of the 21st century.
Displaying how much you care isn't enough. I mean, where's the plan? Despite the assembled masses speaking in one voice, we wouldn't want to rush to war--even if it would save people--and get stuck in a quagmire, right? If we intervene to save the victims of the Sudanese regime aren't we by definition committed to harming the killers? Aren't we creating new victims? What happened to the Pottery Barn rule of "we break it, we own it?" What about considering all the things that could go wrong and adding more volumes to the plan?
And just where does France stand on this? Remember the international test!
You think China will go along, letting us have the big official feel-good international community okey dokey as demonstrated by a UN Security Council resolution? The plan to get Peking's cooperation can go in Volume XIX of "the plan."
I mean, consider the scope of the problem. Darfur has (or "had," before the Sudanese government got serious about killing) 8 million people. So we clearly need 160,000 troops (2% is the widely accepted ratio) to police the region. So who's going to supply those troops? And get them to that isolated region? And supply them? And let's not even consider how many troops we might need if we must occupy all 40+ million Sudanese in case Khartoum doesn't go along with the whole feel-good project. On the bright side, trooop deployment-wise, China has 4,000 troops in Sudan already. Maybe a few could be spared from guarding the oil infrastructure to save a child or two from death. Perhaps.
And will you still be at the rallies if we have to kill Moslem killers who are carrying out the genocide you rightly find so awful? After three years? Or will our troops become babykillers to be condemned? Bring on the next trendy cause! We're done with this one! It got messy...
How many American deaths are enough to justify this mission? Just what is your exit strategy, George? Or are you honestly of the belief that simply caring and holding protest signs with catchy chants is enough to stop stone cold killers?
Much like sporting a "Free Tibet" bumper sticker on your Volvo, it is awfully satisfying in some circles to proclaim to the world your concern for the downtrodden and oppressed. But let's hear even a little bit about just exactly how George Clooney and his ilk anticipate we will "do something" about Darfur. And it if doesn't involve heavily armed American or Western soldiers fighting, killing, and dying for a good cause, just how much hope can the people of Darfur expect from Clooney's speeches?
So get back to me in 2012 when you've finished that perfect plan (in English and French) you all say we have to have before we intervene. If anybody in Darfur is still alive, we'll talk. I mean, I'd never say it would be immoral to intervene, but Sudan does have oil so that has to raise suspicions does it not? Bad luck for the victims of the first genocide of the 21st century to live in a country with oil. Perhaps the Kurds can reach out and explain the situation to the Darfurians.
I won't even hold by breath about Tibet.
UPDATE: Strategypage doesn't think Western direct intervention is likely in any significant manner:
American and European leftists are now calling for armed intervention in Darfur. But governments are wary of such an operation. For one thing, it's very difficult because of the logistics. And then there is the tendency of these same leftists, and their media allies, to turn on any government that does undertake such a military operation. It appears that the Sudanese will have to sort this one out themselves, while the rest of the world stands by and wrings their hands.
Yes. A "tendency" indeed. The moment we would intervene, George Clooney will note that the Darfur rebels are actually rather sorry lot of thugs in their own right. It is so difficult to get victims who are just perfect casting material for a rescue mission.
Or maybe the EU will show the world how a budding soft-superpower sends force to properly defeat thugs?
ANOTHER UPDATE: Sometimes I think Mark Steyn reads The Dignified Rant. He goes off on Clooney's idea and tosses in Tibet as well:
What's the quintessential leftist cause? It's the one you see on a gazillion bumper stickers: Free Tibet. Every college in the US has a Free Tibet society: There's the Indiana University Students for a Free Tibet, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Students for a Free Tibet, and the Students for a Free Tibet University of Michigan Chapter. Everyone's for a free Tibet, but no one's for freeing Tibet. Idealism asinertia is the hallmark of the movement.
Indeed.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Note the similarities between Iraq under Saddam and Sudan under the current crop of rulers. Yet the Left says doing nothing about Sudan is wrong while also arguing that doing something about Iraq is an impeachable offense. I guarantee the Left would turn on American intervention in Sudan within months of boots on the ground.
