JOSHUA FRANK: Save Darfur? Not So Fast...

[Tace]

By Joshua Frank -- World News Trust

If President Bush had any foresight at all, he'd intervene in the Darfur mayhem just to slice a wedge in the antiwar movement. President Nixon attempted to do such a thing in the early 1970s when his administration helped establish the Environmental Protection Agency.

Nixon thought the antiwar movement at the time was largely made of up radical environmentalists, so he figured why not divide the movement by appeasing a few of the enviros' wishes. Fortunately for those who wanted U.S. armed forces out of Vietnam, Nixon's ploy didn't work. Today, the Save Darfur campaign is the cause du jour for the liberal wing of the antiwar movement. And unlike Nixon and the EPA in the '70s, if Bush gets involved in Darfur he may well derail the mounting opposition to the war in Iraq.

George Clooney and a handful of other Hollywood big shots, along with over 164 humanitarian and religious groups, are now calling on the United States to hustle troops over to stop the ethnic conflict. Bin Laden, in his latest radio hit (if it was really him), claimed the Darfur region of the Sudan, which is largely Muslim, would be the next stop for the U.S. imperial armies. Let's hope he's wrong, even if Clooney and Amnesty International desire it. The United States, if troops were deployed, would most likely only escalate the deaths, not end them. There is absolutely no reason to believe that shipping young Americans off to the Horn of Africa to die would result in anything tangible or worthwhile. Sadly, the bloody conflict would likely continue regardless.

Some little-known facts about the Darfur situation: Both sides in the conflict are black, and both sides are Muslim. So, despite what the major news media may say, this isn't an Arab-on-black or Muslim-on-Christian nightmare. And perhaps worst of all, there isn't a good side to be on. Both have committed horrible atrocities, and both want to slaughter the other. Not to mention that entering the region militarily would only feed right into bin Laden's rhetoric -- much like we did when we shocked and awed Baghdad. So I think it's safe to say that hatred of the United States would only increase among closet jihadists in the Middle East and elsewhere if we invaded Darfur. That doesn't make us safer.

more

http://worldnewstrust.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=3540

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I disagree with the very premise

Intervening in Darfur won't do a damn thing to diffuse antipathy to the Iraq War. There's absolutely no basis for believing we'd all suddenly become okay with Iraq if we do the right thing in the Sudan.

[mainegreen]

2. Intervention in Darfur: because Somalia went off so well.

Fortunately we don't have the troops or the money for that little mis-adventure.

[11cents]

3. WTF?

>Nixon thought the antiwar movement at the time was largely made of up radical environmentalists,

The concept of "radical environmentalists" wasn't even in play in the early 70's, and the antiwar movement certainly wasn't associated with "radical environmentalism" in anybody's mind. More nonsense from the Stalinist set.

[LeftNYC]

4. Typical GOP thought...Go to Darfur for political reasons...

or lets not go because Bin Laden wants us too...how about just doing something RIGHT for once?

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Frank misrepresents Amnesty International's position

They're not calling for the US to send troops to Darfur; in 2005 they called for "support for the African Union peacekeeping forces in Darfur in carrying out their mandate to monitor and verify the disarmament of the militias"; and in 2006 they have called for cooperation with the ICC - hardly something you'll get by sending in US troops.

In fact, the Save Darfur organisation calls for "a stronger multi-national force", not US troops. Frank needs to do some research.

[Igel]

6. I disagree with his facts.

"Both sides in the conflict are black, and both sides are Muslim. So, despite what the major news media may say, this isn't an Arab-on-black or Muslim-on-Christian nightmare. And perhaps worst of all, there isn't a good side to be on. Both have committed horrible atrocities, and both want to slaughter the other."

But "Arab" is a term rooted in language and culture, and not so much in the American obsession with skin color; many of the black Sudanese call themselves Arab, as opposed to the Fur which are decidedly not Arab. And many of the janjaweed aren't quite 'black' (although by US standards most are), being significantly mixed with Arab-speakers from farther north.

And not all Muslims are just "Muslim". So the disturbance in Iraq isn't racial--they're all brown-skinned--and it certainly isn't religious, since they're all Muslims. Sure, Sunni and Shi'ite, but it's not Muslim-Christian strife, so it's not religious. Oh, wait, that's not entirely true. D'oh. Khartoumesque shari'a is rather different from what Fur tradition says is ok: one Sudanese cleric even said perhaps they should limit the 'covering' requirement to breasts, and not necessarily include faces just yet, at least in the short term. That should give you a hint about traditions among at least part of the Fur. Bare-breasted Muslim women ... well, they're Muslim, so that must be ok in Riyadh, too.

Both sides committed atrocities. To be sure. Same for Palestine/Israel, Indians/Americans, Indian/Indian warfare, American/Japanese, and many other cases. Nice to live in a world in which evil is only absolute, and can never quantified, relativized, or have mitigating circumstances.

Either Frank is an idiot, or he thinks we're idiots.

[applegrove]

7. UN is going to Darfur. They are getting troups from muslim & african

countries and will fund them. Why it took so long - I do not know.

But looks like there will be a real amount of peacekeepers. And it is almost too much to hope for.