GregsOpinion.com

As if to prove Lileks wrong and demonstrate that the Darfur genocide can adequately be covered without assistance from the Washington Post, here's two good takes, one old ... one new.

Samantha Power makes a great case in a recent issue of Time magazine. Worth taking note of is her estimate of troop levels required to put an end to it are in the ballpark of 10,000. Even more importantly, Power relates in the blurb below how the designation of genocide has been "met" with the response that it has:

The U.S. use of the G word has done little more than set off a new round of bureaucratic shuffling. Some who recall the Holocaust and Rwanda don't believe Darfur measures up. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has said he will appoint a commission to investigate the charges. European ministers, who have been reluctant even to acknowledge ethnic cleansing, are scrambling to draft legal briefs. The Arab League and Sudan have scoffed at the U.S. claim, charging Bush with having an anti-Islamic agenda. Meanwhile, the killings, rapes and torchings continue.

Indeed, as Powell testified, "no new action is dictated by [the genocide] determination." States can meet their obligations under the convention by simply "calling upon the competent organs of the United Nations" or taking action "they consider appropriate." And what the major powers consider appropriate is tame. They have urged Khartoum to "disarm the Janjaweed," knowing full well that Khartoum funded and armed the militia and continues to do so.

The only hope for peace is an international protection force. But so far, only Nigeria, Tanzania and Rwanda have offered troops, and the proposed force of 4,000 won't deter attacks unless the soldiers are equipped and paid for by the major powers, are given a mandate to protect civilians and are eventually reinforced by 10,000 additional troops from other nations. Yet amid all the talk of oil embargoes, travel bans and asset freezes, no statesman ? not Powell and not Annan ? has attempted to rally the money, troops and political cooperation needed for such a force.

Bush Administration officials seem to feel that, having used the G word, they have done their part. But the sin of past Presidents is not that they failed to use the word but that then, as now, they failed to stop the crime.

Used to be, the term itself was sidestepped because the initiation of the term would necessitate action under the Genocide Convention. Apparently, we've advanced to the point now where a fig leaf of action is being used to allow for demonstration of something passing for action.

The new one is an editorial in TNR demonstrating how the inaction shown thus far is set to become a bipartisan error:

Kerry erred when he criticized the president for failing to provide logistical support to the African Union (AU) troops monitoring the April cease-fire signed by Khartoum and Darfur rebel groups. "Right now, all the president is providing is humanitarian support," Kerry said. But that's not quite true. The United States footed the bill for the private contractor that set up the AU base camp and that is handling some logistics for the AU's small force in the field. Moreover, the State Department has earmarked an additional $20.5 million in support of a proposed expanded AU mission.

But Bush's comments were worse. He cited last year's U.S.-led intervention in Liberia as a model for what the United States should be doing in Sudan, noting, "We helped stabilize the situation [in Liberia] with some troops. And, when the African Union came, we moved [American troops] out." Unfortunately, the administration's strategy in Darfur bears little resemblance to the one it pursued in Liberia. In Liberia, the United States positioned three Navy warships within sight of the capital and dispatched 200 Marines to provide backup to West African peacekeepers. In Darfur, on the other hand, the Bush administration has ruled out sending any American troops, saying that U.S. armed forces are overstretched.

The administration treats Darfur more like a natural disaster than a murderous government-directed strategy. "We are not trying to punish the Sudanese people or the Sudanese government. We are trying to save lives," Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month. The United States is offering a relief response when a political response is needed, dealing with the results of a crisis rather than its causes. And some members of the U.N. Security Council are happy to play along. Prodded by China and Russia, which have economic interests in Sudan, the Council has allowed Khartoum to continue killing after the cease-fire--without any consequences. Meanwhile, 50,000 Darfurians have died and 1.4 million have been driven from their homes.

The TNR editorial goes on to hint at the opening Kerry has before him (to date, one not used) in the first debate performance. Admittedly, I was a bit miffed to see both candidate come out as strongly as they have against sending in troops, but one cavaet of Kerry's is worth offering hope for:

During the debate, Kerry suggested he would be willing to send troops "if it took American forces to some degree to coalesce the African Union." In so doing, he made an important moral and political point. Emphasizing his willingness to intervene in Darfur without U.N. approval would help deflect Bush's criticism that a Kerry presidency would be a slave to international opinion, allowing foreign leaders to determine U.S. national interests and policy agendas.

If only Kerry would take a harder line on Darfur, he could make a pitch perfect case for how Sudan is the right war at the right place at the right time. On one level, it is humanitarian in nature. But on another, action could prevent Sudan from slipping further into the morass of being a failed state - one that would be more likely to succumb to monetary overtures of terrorist groups offering money for safe harbor and weaponry. It would have been a far better cry than saying that Iraq is the central war on terror. It would have demonstrated toughness in a place that could use some. It could have demonstrated a perfect example of how Kerry would step up to defend American interests by staving off this accumulating disaster.

Instead, Kerry dwells on cleaning up Bush's mess in Iraq. To be fair, that's a tall enough order for most. But if he's not careful, he could also have to clean up Bush's mess in Sudan ... one that Kerry should have the foresight and fortitude to head off sooner than he seems willing to. Even more optimistic is the fact that Samantha Power herself is an erstwhile adviser to Kerry. Power's niche of genocide isn't likely to move her to the front of the pack in getting Kerry's attention, but one would hope she'd get that attention sooner rather than later.

Bush, for his part, was too quick to add that he and Kerry were in agreement that no new troops were needed. The already overextended troops we have may be sighing a bit of relief in hearing that. Military families and peace-loving moderates may be doing the same in hearing that there is just a little less chance of yet another war. But this is a perfect case of how Bush's missteps in Iraq may well have harmed us for the war next time.