July 29, 2004
"If the Left would help this time..."
Orrin Judd mentions this article, The Morality of Intervention, which blames the lack of progress in Darfur on the Iraq invasion. Judd sums it all up nicely:
One reads along futilely in an attempt to find some way in which Sudan differs from Iraq:Bush and Blair are both the sort of "classic liberals' who would love to send a couple of brigades to Sudan to clean things up. But both of them used up their store of political capital fighting the relentless and continuing attacks of the fascistic pro-Saddam Left.* European indifferenceThe reasons for intervention are identical. If the Left would help this time, instead of hindering the humanitarian effort, it might restore some of their moral credibility and would certainly hasten vital action.
* Arab/Muslim complicity
* Opposition from the Realist gang
* The Anglosphere leading the lonely crusade
* A serious response bogging down at the UN
* Complications because of past Western inaction
* The ultimate realization that only America and its military can reorder the situation and save lives
Fighting the same useless crew who now have the gall to castigate Bush and Blair for not doing anything in Sudan...(continuing until the moment Bush/Blair start to do something, when they will switch over to attacking them.)
And of course it is NEVER even suggested that the critics on the Left might themselves take action, say by organizing some of those noisy protests in favor of military intervention in Sudan. No no no... The Left never DOES anything, they just whine about what the grownups do.
[Yes, I know, I'm oversimplifying "the Left." Of course there are some there who are capable of action of a positive sort. But they are so few they can only be considered lonely voices. They have no influence, and staying where they are is a sort of moral abdication. They should move to the side that still believes in promoting the good and fighting evil vigorously. That still believes in the FUTURE. They might form a new flavor in the conservative ice-cream parlor. The name "neocons" has already been taken by a previous group who left the Dark Side, so perhaps we could call them "Gladstonians."]
Given that we’re pulling people out of Korea in order to send them to Iraq (hell, the S. Koreans are pulling personnel out of Korea to send them to Iraq), do we _have_ anyone left to send to Sudan? I mean, I’m in favor of going into Sudan and all, but do we have the people to fulfill the obligations we’ve already taken on?
Posted by: Andrew Cory at July 29, 2004 10:32 AMHi -
Long time lurker...
It's not European indifference. It's French duplicity. And complicity.
The people being driven from their land and murdered want a portion of the country's oil money. The government, one of the most corrupt around, has no interest in giving them a cent and finds it vastly more efficient to send out the thugs.
The civil war is interfering with the ability of France and China to start to pump oil. They've paid off the government, who is now butchering those who want their share.
John
Posted by: John F. Opie at July 29, 2004 01:39 PMAndrew, my guess is that we are stretched, but not that stretched. I don't think anyone's talking about really large numbers of troops.
As for Korea, we really don't need ground troops there at all, at least not for fighting. The ROK has a fine modern army that could defeat NK easily. Our guys are mostly there to make it clear that any NK invasion would bring war with the US.
The problem in Korea is the possible nukes, plus the thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. A kind of terrorist blackmail, which is all NK has left.
John, Hi! What you say is not surprising.
