May 10, 2006

Darfur is "at peace"

Sense from the New Republic:

...The notion of force as a first resort defies the foundations of diplomacy and also of common sense: A willingness to use hard power abroad must not become a willingness to use it wildly. But if you are not willing to use force against genocide immediately, then you do not understand what genocide is.

Genocide is not a crisis that escalates into evil. It is evil from its inception. It may change in degree if it is allowed to proceed, but it does not change in kind. It begins with the worst. Nor is its gravity to be measured quantitatively: The intention to destroy an entire group is present in the destruction of even a small number of people from that group. It makes no sense, therefore, to speak of ending genocide later. If you end it later, you will not have ended it. If Hitler had been stopped after the murder of three million Jews, would he be said to have failed?...

The world has changed, and leftists and pacifists are in deep denial. The wars of our time are internal wars, within failed states. But the definition of "war" is still stuck in the days when nation-states fought each other with armies.

Darfur is "at peace." 400,000 have died, but thank heavens they've been spared the horrors of war! And if America and its allies sent troops to stop the killing, leftists would call it "war," and have anti-war marches, and shriek about the "civilian casualties" we've caused.

And if the slaughter stopped upon our arrival, as probably it would, then they would say. "Bush lied!"

Posted by John Weidner at May 10, 2006 7:48 AM
Weblog by John Weidner