December 30, 2005
Pacifism Kills, part 42
Christopher Hitchins is scathing in this piece on Darfur. The genocide is effectively over---because most of the blacks are dead.
But hey, we did all the things that the "realists" and pacifists and appeasers and "moderates" wanted! Negotiations, sanctions, diplomacy, multi-lateralism, the UN...and of course, very important: "allow the inspectors more time."
It would have been perfectly feasible for us to intervene...but probably not politically possible, due to the savage and unscrupulous partisan attacks that hinder everything the administration does. Hitch writes:
...Any critique of realism has to begin with a sober assessment of the horrors of peace. Everybody now wishes, or at least says they wish, that we had not made ourselves complicit spectators in Rwanda. But what if it had been decided to take action? Only one member state of the U.N. Security Council would have had the capacity to act with speed to deploy pre-emptive force (and that would have been very necessary, given the weight of the French state, and the French veto, on the side of the genocidaires). It is a certainty that at some stage, American troops would have had to open fire on the "Hutu Power" mobs and militias, actually killing people and very probably getting killed in return. Body bags would have been involved. It is not an absolute certainty that all detained members of those militias would have been treated with unfailing tenderness. It is probable that some of the military contractors would have overcharged, and that some locals would have engaged in profiteering and even in tribal politics....
"The horrors of peace." That puts it perfectly. The leftist/pacifist crowd has enabled yet another genocide. Another Rawanda. They get to carve another notch on their pistols. Funny how it's always somebody else who does the suffering and dying so peaceniks get to feel morally superior and get to have clean consciences untouched by the evils of war.
The Bush and Blair administrations were clearly interested, and if encouraged would probably have intervened. I think Bush should have just gone ahead and done it. If he had made the case forcefully to the American people, they would have supported him. And he should have kicked the Democrat-murderers and pacifist-murderers in the teeth, and told them to do their worst.
(Thanks to Mary Madigan, who has lots more worth reading.)
Posted by John Weidner at December 30, 2005 09:18 PMI think Bush should have jusg gone ahead and done it.
I disagree. I think Bush did exactly the right thing.
What happened in Darfur was a tragedy, but it wasn't our tragedy. We have to be hard-headed here: the US cannot solve all the world's problems, and we had no significant interest in what happened in Darfur.
And by playing along, by being multilateral, by doing what the lefties and Europeans recommended, relying on diplomacy and empty threats, the result was genocide. By going along with the Europeans we have established an object lesson and a sharp contrast with what happened in Iraq, where we broke all the European's rules.
As a result of what happened in Darfur, it's going to be that much harder for the Europeans to pretend that they know better than we do how things should be done. The next time they complain about us being unilateral and demand that we follow their lead, we can retort, "Oh, like we did in Darfur?"
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at December 31, 2005 01:33 PMLogic says you are absolutely right.
And saving Africans is likely to be a futile exercise anyway until we can change the culture of despotism and corruption that keeps them from helping themselves....and THAT project is a few decades farther in the future along the road we are on, one that started perhaps when we decided to change the cultures of Japan and Germany, and is now leading through us the ME and Central Asia.
(The little cowboy/samurai inside me disagrees.)
Posted by: John Weidner at December 31, 2005 02:39 PMSteven, you're assuming that the US-haters won't simply shriek "Look what happened! You should have done something!" And when we ask "well, what then?" we'll simply get this reply: "We don't know! You're supposed to know! You're the powerful ones! You should have done something! This is all your fault! Everything is your fault!"
Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 31, 2005 03:48 PMIt's interesting how similar this is to a discussion on parenting. Fortunately for me my 3 teenagers are much more mature and sensible than European countries or the International Left...
Posted by: John Weidner at December 31, 2005 04:02 PMAndrea, there will be some who will say that. But as soon as they do, they marginalize themselves and can safely be ignored because the vast majority of people will recognize them for what they are.
The goal here is not to convert the America-haters; that's impossible. The goal is to prevent them from having any influence, and our "cooperation" regarding Darfur has gone a long way towards that goal. Our current policy regarding Zimbabwe is another example of that.
The Bush administration has several times gone ahead and done what the lefties suggest they should do, when in situations where failure was not going to be catastrophic. For instance, the call went out "Get NATO involved."
So NATO is involved in Afghanistan, and it has not showered itself in glory there. NATO is not involved in Iraq, where its participation would actually have had dire consequences.
Originally there were demands for that, too, but when is the last time you heard anyone, even on the left, demanding that NATO be involved in Iraq? Even the lefties recognize that particular argument is past its sell-by date.
So it was in Darfur: if things went to hell there it was going to be bad for the locals but not particularly bad for the US, so Bush decided to play along so as to give the Europeans plenty of rope to hang themselves. Which they have done.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at December 31, 2005 04:15 PMYou're more optimistic than I am. Or else I still have fantasies of something -- some grand realization of their own perfidy -- happening to the haters, causing them to disappear in a poof of sulfurous smoke...
Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 31, 2005 05:19 PMAndrea, unfortunately the old saw is true: "Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate." Those who hate America won't ever go away.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at December 31, 2005 05:47 PMSteven, another good example would be Iran. Bush has stepped back, and fully supported the Euro methods and aims for several years.
And we can see how well that worked.
Yes, Casey - except that in Iran we may eventually be forced to do something. Unlike Darfur, where an intervention would have been simply humanitarian, we do have a significant interest in keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
