Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Democrats have been whining about the idea of America being the world’s police. Their argument is that the world is a big and dangerous place, and that America can’t waste its limited resources on protecting random countries from one another or themselves.
This position has gained a lot of popularity lately, especially since July of 2006, when many deemed the current Iraq disaster a civil war. For a long while, I questioned the Iraq policy. Why should America “police” the world? After all, in the end, only one thing can happen. Eventually, something will go wrong in the country we're protecting, and we will be blamed for it by local politicians so that they can save their own backsides from political damnation. This was my line of thinking for the last few months – that is, until the Democrats starting bringing up the idea of intervening in the Sudan.
Don’t pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about. Democrats have been speaking up about the genocide in Darfur as if it were critical to US national security. One small example of this sudden urge by Democrats to police the Sudan was seen in a demonstration held by New York Congressman Charlie Rangel in July of 2004 which led to his arrest. There are a litany of examples of Democrats supporting intervention in Sudan. Buy why?
I don’t want to drag this blog out longer than it needs to be, so I will get to the point. Here are a list of reasons that make the genocide in the Sudan relevant to American national security.
…yep that’s about it.
Here are a list of reasons that made Iraq relevant to American national security in 2003.
• Saddam Hussein – this man was more dangerous than Osama bin Laden in 2003. Why? Keep reading.
• Fear of a WMD program
• Failure to comply with UN weapons sanctions
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Deano
Actually the problems in Darfur do offer some significant security and strategic risks to the US and the west in general, although they may not be significant enough as yet to warrent intervention.
Population displacement, civil disorder and social breakdowns, the fragmentation of governmental controls etc. typically don't stop at the border. The events in Darfur can and do effect the surrounding "neighborhood" and the inevitable costs associated with the ongoing conflict pull resources, monies and attention away from other regions.
Failed states and states embroiled in civil war and irredentist struggles create their own problems, namely they often give rise, as Afghanistan did, to regions where terrorists and extremists can operate with impunity. In today's inter-connected world, failed states, can provide safe havens for training of extremists, support infrastructures, funding etc. They often become centres for illegal enterprises such as the arms trade, drug trafficking, slavery, piracy and more. Somolia is a prime example.
I suspect that the US would see little strategic value in intervening in Sudan except in very targeted, short-term ways (i.e. dropping a force to protect a refugee camp) but given they are overstretched now with deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan that will continue for at least the next two years, any significant action in Sudan will be very limited.
The Democrats might sound off on Darfur but I seriously doubt they would ever take the chance of actually actively intervening...Most of the current chatter is political posturing in the place of actual policy.
2 - Media Tycoon
I pretty much agree with everything you had to say. My point isn't as much about the relevance the Sudan has to American national security, but the hypocrisy being practiced by Democrats on the issue. There is no way that a thinking human being could be against the war in Iraq and for intervention in the Sudan. NO WAY. Which is why, like you said, nothing will (at least not likely) will be done there.
3 - Zedd
The Flip Flop thing has played out.
Who cares about flip flopping (changing your mind) when there are liars, perverts, and thieves in office.
Flip Flop OOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
Who cares!!!!!!!
4 - Baronius
Tycoon, don't forget that Iraq was shooting at American and coalition aircraft just about every day.
I'd love to see someone get involved in Sudan. The UN, non-government organizations, and African neighbors can all play a role. Maybe some of the countries who didn't support our invasion of Iraq will want to get involved in a more explicitly humanitarian mission.
In the old days, the CIA might have stepped in and made things... different. Not always better, but different.
5 - Media Tycoon
#3
***fallacy alert***
6 - Bliffle
MT: "My point isn't as much about the relevance the Sudan has to American national security, but the hypocrisy being practiced by Democrats..."
So I infer that your message is political rather than patriotic, which makes it less interesting. You've named the democrats as the enemy, not the terrorists, or OBL, or saddam, or islamo-fascists, or whatever. I find this a distressing tendency among the usurpers who have (temporarily, one hopes) taken over the Republican party.
7 - Bliffle
MT: "My point isn't as much about the relevance the Sudan has to American national security, but the hypocrisy being practiced by Democrats..."
So I infer that your message is political rather than patriotic, which makes it less interesting. You've named the democrats as the enemy, not the terrorists, or OBL, or saddam, or islamo-fascists, or whatever. I find this a distressing tendency among the usurpers who have (temporarily, one hopes) taken over the Republican party.
8 - Bliffle
MT: "My point isn't as much about the relevance the Sudan has to American national security, but the hypocrisy being practiced by Democrats..."
So I infer that your message is political rather than patriotic, which makes it less interesting. You've named the democrats as the enemy, not the terrorists, or OBL, or saddam, or islamo-fascists, or whatever. I find this a distressing tendency among the usurpers who have (temporarily, one hopes) taken over the Republican party.
9 - Zedd
Flip flop
Clip Clop
Drip Drop
WHATEVER!!! Its silly and its made up!
10 - Paul
The whole article is inconsistent crap and the flip/flop concept is absolutely ridiculous and construed, simply because you cannot compare Sudan with pre-war Iraq.
There has been a long-time conflict in Sudan and it might be suitable to go there with a UN mandate to achieve certain humanitarian goals.
There was no compareable conflict in Iraq, there was no UN mandate (therefore illegal) and the goal of the invasion was regime change. The conflict erupted after the US army went in. And all the other fabricated reasons proved wrong:
" Saddam was bad. I wish WMDs hadn't been hyped up as being the main reason for invading Iraq because they were only one of dozens of reasons to get rid of that guy."
--Aha, excellent argument. The WMD weren't "hyped up", there weren't any.
"Everything about Saddam was bad."
--Would you mind citing that source?
"We know he sponsored terrorism. Billy Clinton knew it, and so did Jimmy Carter. Please don't make me argue this one."
--You dont have a source because there is no source and thus no argument. Iraq didn't sponsor terrorism and wouldn't have been interested in it - it was not a religious regime. There were no links to Al-Quaida, the US Senate concluded.
"Also, don't forget that Saddam probably hated America more than anyone else in the world. On September 11, Iraq was the only country not to send their condolences to the US"
-- thats your reason for going to war ?
You're hilarious, go back to elementary school.
11 - Clavos
There has been a long-time conflict in Sudan and it might be suitable to go there with a UN mandate to achieve certain humanitarian goals.
Or not.
12 - Aku
I have wondered for some time why the EU does not take the lead on this issue, especially since the EU is seeking to raise its level of power ond prestige. A European (perhaps + Canadian) contingent with US logistical support (we fly them and their supplies there, keeping them supplied over time) is definitely doable, IMHO.
13 - Aku
By Zedd
"Flip flop
Clip Clop
Drip Drop
WHATEVER!!! Its silly and its made up!"
Your presents brightens us all Zedd.
14 - Anthony Grande
Democrats flip floping? Since when?
Democrats have no real issue they just go with what's popular in the the poles.
AG
15 - Lee Richards
re #14, "in the poles":
Two new lobbyist groups have been formed--
Free the Elves, and Save the Penguins!
16 - Dave Nalle
The whole article is inconsistent crap and the flip/flop concept is absolutely ridiculous and construed, simply because you cannot compare Sudan with pre-war Iraq.
He actually does a rather good job with that comparison in the article.
There has been a long-time conflict in Sudan and it might be suitable to go there with a UN mandate to achieve certain humanitarian goals.
There was no compareable conflict in Iraq,
Except for the 40 years of history of tension between religious and ethnic groups there. You think Saddam gassing Kurds and massacring Shiites and invading his neighbors isn't a history of conflict?
there was no UN mandate (therefore illegal)
Except, of course, that there clearely WAS tacit UN approval for action against Iraq.
and the goal of the invasion was regime change. The conflict erupted after the US army went in. And all the other fabricated reasons proved wrong:
Well, maybe one of them, anyway.
--Aha, excellent argument. The WMD weren't "hyped up", there weren't any.
Nice try, but we sold them to him, so we know they existed at one time. Plus he USED them to kill thousands.
"Everything about Saddam was bad."
--Would you mind citing that source?
Perhaps you could share with us the good points about your favorite genocidal dictator.
--You dont have a source because there is no source
There are PLENTY of sources. Why the hell do you think Clinton bombed Baghdad?
and thus no argument. Iraq didn't sponsor terrorism and wouldn't have been interested in it - it was not a religious regime.
Except that they DID sponsor terrorism for whatever reasons - general hatred if Israel if nothing else. The payments made to the families of suicide bombers in Israel are extremely well documented.
There were no links to Al-Quaida, the US Senate concluded.
And becase the Senate was so right in its assessment of the WMD evidence you think they're right on this too?
Dave
17 - Media Tycoon
LOL...I NEED TO CITE A SOURCE THAT SAYS SADDAM WAS BAD?!?!??!?!
...how about common sense. Just as many Iraqis died under Saddam than have died in the Sudan.
As for Iraq sponsoring terrorism...Iraq was first put on the state sponsor of terrorism list in 1979 under Jimmy Carter. Iraq was briefly removed from the list during the 80s so we could trade with them during their war with Iran. They eventually got back on the list and remained on there during the Clinton years.
18 - Aku
"Everything about Saddam was bad."
--Would you mind citing that source?
Perhaps you could share with us the good points about your favorite genocidal dictator."
I heard he mad a great coffee cake.
19 - Aku
ahem, made.
20 - Paul2
The conflicts are not compareable and neither is the mission that was supposed to follow. A UN mission is not an invasion of another country.
Tensions in Sudan where significantly graver than in Iraq, and the US didn't invade to "ease the the tension".
WMD: the US gov't clearly based the war on Iraq on development of new weapons and not on some antiques from the 1980s. Powell himself said this presentation of false data at the UN was an "embarassment".
Terrorism sponsorship: It was clearly said that Al-Quaeda/911 link existed and that this link actually posed a threat to the US. That was obviously wrong. And all the other Arab nations namely Saudi Arabia and others support suicide bombers as well.
To call someone else "bad" or "evil" is neither a political nor a legal nor a rational argument for justifying a war. And neither is a "list" that "Billy" or "Jimmy" set up.
The UN Security Council voted "NO" to the war. Thats hardly an equivocal statement.
21 - Media Tycoon
I don't think calling Saddam bad is an argument for going to war. I don't think calling the genocide in Darfur "bad" is an argument for going to war there either.
Looks like we pretty much agree.
On a side note, The Economist made a beautiful argument for the invasion of Iraq minus the links to Al-Qaeda and minus WMD in Feb on 2003. Go read it if you get a chance (You will probably have to take a trip down to the local library to do it, but it is worth it). Iraq was a failed/out law regime in 2003. The only other state that was even close to Iraq in terms of threatening US national security at the time arguably North Korea.
Unfortunately, no military action there is possible for reasons that are irrelevant to this blog (but to sum it up, there would be 3 million dead South Korean's before we could get within 20 miles of Pyongyang).
22 - Lumpy
I think you could easily argue that iran was more of a threat and more of a sponsor of terrorism than iraq.
23 - Media Tycoon
No you could not...but if you can, I dare you to.
24 - Paul2
And maybe Media Tycoon you could tell us what this good reasons and threats to the US where, since you already read the article. I'd be especially interested in these threats to US security, since all your other arguments failed.
By the way, it is kind of childish that someone who was against the war ultimately has to be someone that found Saddam Hussein great. I never said that.
And North Korea, with its starving population a threat to the United States of America ... yeah right.
25 - Media Tycoon
If you don't think North Korea is a threat to American national security, that is fine, but you are a intellectual loaner.
As for the Economist's argument for war...i scanned the article. I'll try to find it when I get home from work.