Redstate

the idea that we should divert troops from a war to go to Darfun is simply lunacy.

If you were proposing that we move the Sudan into some type of neo-colonial receivership then there might be a case to be made. Outside that there is 1) no national interest and 2) no logical outcome that improves the lot of the people or solves the problem.

This is an African problem. It is incumbent upon African nations to solve it. If not, then the Europeans, who seem to have the answers to everything, should step up. If they don't I fail to see why we should.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Good post.

The U.N. Security Council has agreed to send in just under 18,000 troops but has gotten the run-around from the Sudan government. From what I understand, there are peace talks currently underway, but if it fails then at the very least we need to be arming the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit people and offer to help with some air attacks against the Janjaweed.

I Bush were to offer a compromise in which we would agree to support putting troops in Darfur if they would agree to fully fund the war in Iraq as well as cut their verbal undermining of the troops on the nightly news, would you be willing to agree to it?

I ask because I agree with your position, and this is the only way I could attempt to rationalize going there. I say hypothetically, because I doubt anyone in the administration has the hutzpa to put it this way.

They don't think they are undermining our troops. Just ask them.

And, speaking for me, not one US soldier in Darfur. Not one. For any reason.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

mission to Darfur will be a stupid blue hat mission with really dumb ROE and where they are going to declare both sides somehow equally valid and worthy of protection blah blah blah.

I honestly can see a reason for some of these missions, but I think if undertaken they should be only where you definitely declare one side the bad guys, and seek to completely and utterly defeat them, if that isn't going to be the goal, then stay out.

First, Let us agree that Biden is an idiot. Clearly our priority should be waging war in Iraq and Afganistan, and waging war to win. Darfur is clearly not in the same league of priorities.

Let me further agree that a single brigade would not suffice (which furthers your point that Biden doesn't know what he's talking about).

No problems thus far.

However, the atrocities in Darfur are the work of Islamic extremists.

Is this true? The roots of Darfur is rooted in the fact that you have Arab muslims vs Black Christians and animists. Islamic extremism may play some role, but this is not driven or motivated by that extremism. Arabs have been killing and slave raiding in the area for millenia.

I believe we should be waging a world war on Islamic extremism (much as we waged a cold war on communism and a hot war on nazism). I applaud our president for using force in Somolia recently, and I would applaud it in Darfur as well.

Maybe yes, maybe no. But if I stipulate to the above, there are theaters of operations much more vital (Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Nigeria) than Darfur and really argue against our intervention there as a mere sideshow in this war. I've no problem with AC-130 gunships, like we've done in Somalia, or air strikes and I'm not opposed to arming and training the victims here so they can defend themselves.
but that is not the proposal on the table.

We will fight you in every country that gives you safe haven and in every country that supports you logisticly or financialy".

Even if I stipulate to this as a strategy, and I don't have any objection to it, this does not make a case for US troops in Darfur.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

On the point about the history of Islamic extremism:

That Muslims have been slave trading and killing for many years may not be a brand of extremism related to the extremism we are fighting elsewhere is a point I don't fully agree with.

Perhaps we might be willing to stipulate that genocide and slave trading IS extremism, even if the roots of that extremism isn't linked with Wahabism. Sadam's madness wasn't Wahabism either (though I would conceed that his regime was more a threat to the US than Darfur's muslims).

I'll grant there are other areas more pressing, and you have named them. My point is that we should be in those places too, not to the exclusion of lesser priorities. We claim to be waging a global war on terror, but our efforts in the places you name don't seem to be all out. In my mind Saudi Arabia is the hotbed of the school of thought that the US and Israel should be destroyed, and their government exports this ideology to mosques worldwide (including to the US). We should be doing something there too.

I'll agree with settling for AC-130 strikes / arming training the victims.

Perhaps I'm a bit of a warmonger. I just don't see us eradicating muslim extremism unless we go all out. Nazism is all but extinct, and communism is dying because we fought those ideologies. Today we're too afraid of offending our enemies. The ROE for our troops are a joke, and our airport security measures are designed not to focus on the types of people that are the biggest threat.

I remember Arafat the day after 9/11 shaking like a leaf on TV and telling the American people how sorry he was for what happened and that he knew nothing about it. That's the kind of fear the enemy would have if we struck Islamic extremsim wherever/whenever it's head popped up. This "gentle" war we're waging isn't cutting it in my opinion.

Never the less I remain in full support of our president's efforts. I just wish we would do more.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Then we'll have polls, of course, which show that "Sudanese aren't better off than they were under the old regime."

I'm not one to make policy based on what the media wants. Are we to avoid any conflict because the media will call them quagmires?

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

in a post about whether Santa Claus is real. Or in a post about the Pythagorean theorem. Or...
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

n/t

That particular scandal seems to follow them wherever the blue helmets go.

I'm not aware of anyone on my side who ever claimed that Saddam's brutality was, in and of itself, casus belli. I know a lot of you guys claim that was the case as well as other exotic assertions.

If you want to know why we went to war, look at the Congressional authorization for the war. It is pretty detailed, there were a lot of reasons. If your friends fall for this, then tell them to ask their social studies teacher for help finding the reasons for war.

But even if I played your silly game and agreed that in some hypothetical bizarro world we did go to war solely over the brutality of the regime, there were and remain lots of valid US strategic interests in that region and a friendly, western oriented Iraq would help secure a lot of those interests. Unless in the hypothetical bizarro world we are discussing Darfur is moved several hundred or thousand miles from where it is or it is discovered to be the sole source of dilithium crystals then I see them as really different cases. Even in bizarro world.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

From the tone of your response, I can see that I must have inadvertantly phrased my question in a hostile manner (one that I honestly did not intend). Thank you for your reply nonetheless, and thanks for being patient with those of us who aren't 100% on your side (yet; there's always hope, right?).

I recall a State of the Union Address when President Bush mentioned the brutality and "rape rooms" in Iraq. This wasn't the first or last time he spoke of this and other atrocities prior to the invasion. Perhaps this is how some folks have misconstrued this.

Applying lipstick to a pig doesn't change the fact that it's still a pig.

Saddam Hussein regularly fired upon US military aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. Last time I heard, that was an act of war.

And, as for the old WMD argument, look it up. As part of the ceasefire agreement that ended the first Gulf War (note: I did not say peace treaty, but ceasefire) it was agreed by Saddam Hussein that he would destroy ALL of his WMDs and then provide PROOF to the UN inspectors that he had done so. Again, note, that it was NEVER the repsonsibility of the UN inspectors or the US or anyone else to FIND the WMDs, it was the responsibilitiy of Saddam Hussein to furnish the proof. Barring that proof, he was in "material breach" of the ceasefire.

I really don't want to to threadjack and make this a debate about the Iraq war and its justification. I was merely asking whether the author of this post subscribed to a particular line of justification to which several of my pro-Iraq war friends happen to subscribe. I realize that there are plenty of possible reasons, including those that you list above, for our having gone into Iraq. This not being my blog or even a blog designed to promote my particular views, I thank you for your response, but I will refrain from giving my own opinion to your (probably rhetorical) question "how is this for casus belli?"

...appreciate that you have kept the tone civil, and do hope that you are seriously looking for answers to your question (though I can see why folks might think you're dropping sarcastic, nit-picky bombs, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).

It has been stated here, ad nauseum in several diaries, that there were many reasons why we went to Iraq/Afghanistan. WMD, Saddam's brutality, AQ presence in the region, etc. The list is as long as my arm. "Our side", as you so quaintly put it, actually listened to all the rationale for our ME adventures, and have realized that pre-emtion was our only choice. That, and 40+ years of watching the region tear itself apart, while chasing the nuclear rainbow.

Darfur, while a horrible example of 'Man's inhumanity to man', holds only one of those rationales; that of stopping the murder. Well, with your argument, we should also invade nearly every other nation on the planet, under the justification that, "we're trying to stop the killing". Needless to say, if we don't have the troops to fight where we already are, as so many on the left and right have argued, how can we justify invading, say, China?

Again, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. I truly do hope that you are not being snarky and pointing out the 'hypocrisy' of our position, since there really is none. In short, CrabCakes, do just a bit more research into the question (with more resources than just DKos and Google, Reuters and the AP). You might find that we don't really differ as much as you think.

with your line of argumentation. I personally (unlike many on the left, and right for that matter), while believing that Darfur is an absolute tragedy, do not believe that committing U.S. troops is the answer. That is precisely why I find the argument that "Saddam killed his own people" uncovincing. Since it seems clear that no one here at Redstate (or at least those who have been kind enough to respond to me) believes that this is a primary justification for the Iraq war, it seems that this isn't really an issue of disagreement between me and the community here. That's all I was really trying to find out. Thanks for your response and for your civility and patience.

we face. We can sent an army into Darfur, and before you know it, Darfur will be a "quagmire" as al-Qaeda and every other radical Islamic terrorist group will be drawn to Darfur like a magnet.

Had we NOT gone into Iraq, but instead stayed in Afghanistan, they THAT theatre of war would be the "quagmire" as it would have drawn every radical there.

The fact is, this is an enemy that is NOT interested in peace. Not in the Mideast, not in the horn of Africa, not in the Phillipines, Indonesia, or anywhere else in the world. The US is not in Algeria, we never have had a presence there, but the radicals are attacking, and have been for more than a decade.

The only way the US can stay safe from this enemy is to pull back from the rest of the world and build a fifty foot fence around the entire country. we will have to cut ourself off from all mideast oil, and let the entire economy of the world go to h*ll.

Even still, if we did all of that, they would still attack us here...after they have taken all of the moderate states in the Mideast, all of Africa, and all of Europe. Sure, there will be a lot less ALIVE people in the rest of the world, but those that are left will be Muslim.

OR, we can fight them on our terms.

" if we don't have the troops to fight where we already are, as so many on the left and right have argued"

Yep, I think that's the majority view on both sides. Darfur isn't going to get our troops. We might decry the injustice, with varying degrees of sincerity, but both R and D politicians know we don't have the troops to spare for this mission.

although I don't speak for streiff, what I will say is that hearing it in any form is a little like driving somewhere with my kids (when they were little) in the backseat. "When are we gonna get there dad?" Over and over.

While your question may well have been asked in good faith, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that, the continuous responses from the leadership of your party is not in good faith. Thus, the question is tiresome.

The better question would be addressed to your party leaders. Something along the line of, "Hey, I just read the authorization to use force that you guys voted on. It doesn't deal with much of any of the stuff you've been bitching about since a week after you voted for it." Why don't you shut up?"
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I really didn't mean to do so. I hope that it is clear that I only asked my question to better understand how one conservative, or group of conservatives, felt about a line of argumentation that I have heard from other conservatives.
I realize that there is no more such a thing as a single conservative stance on any one issue than there is a single liberal stance on any one issue (trust me, I'm no fan of Biden, and I have no desire to defend his idiotic position on this one). I'm glad to see that the folks here at Redstate have a better line of argumentation than do my pro-Iraq war friends; perhaps I should send them a link. It seems to me that citing the AUMFaI is a much more convincing way to make the case for justifying the war than the way it's often done. (That's not to say that I now believe the Iraq war was a great idea, but at least the way it has been argued here seems logically defensible.)
By the way, I hope it's also clear that I am seriously interested in the opinions expressed here for the benefit of better forming my own. I'm not interested in playing "conservatives in the mist" or covertly wooing people to my own position. I find the former arrogant and boring, and if I were interested in the latter, I'd create my own blog, not try to hijack someone else's.
Thanks again to you and everyone else who has taken the time to respond to my question, as well as for your civility and patience with my (unintentionally) annoying way of asking it.

Thank you, Cakes, for clarifying your position, and your kind response to me.

I couldn't possibly rehash the timelines and/or justification arguments any better than the folks here at Redstate. The best thing to do, to answer most of your questions, is read the blogs here, compare them with whatever else you usually read, and make up your own mind. The trouble conservatives/hawks usually have is with people who let the lefty bullet points do their thinking for them.

For myself, I have been watching the Middle East since I was 10, starting with the Munich Olympics Massacre. That action made NO sense to a preteen Navy brat, anymore than last night's bombing in Baghdad makes sense to a 45 year old ex-squid grandfather. I know the value of a life; lost my brother in 78, Mom in 82, and my Dad just last summer. I've seen more senseless death in my time, than I prefer to remember. That there are people willing to kill and die for simple differences in Theology makes me sick. For me, that's rationale enough for our intervention, and feel that it is only 30 years too late. I formed that opinion from experience and observation, not because somebody I admire said it first.

Therefore, when a Biden or O'Donnell or Sheehan type starts arguing for a course of action that I KNOW is wrong, it makes the sacrifices of those I loved seem cheapened. "Why did we bother?" is the reaction I have, when I think of my brother losing his life while serving, my Mom as a loyal Navy wife, and Dad after he retired.

What bothers me the most about this Congress-critter, is that he argues so vehemently about the Iraq theater being "immoral, illegal and wrong", but then suggests this proposal. I abhor hypocrisy, especially from people in authority.

circumventing the UN sanctions by bilking the Oil for Food program and amassing billions of dollars, then shopping for goodies from coutries who were not supporting the efforts to supress him" reason that made us go to war.

Gassing his own people is just one more side issue girding up the decision.

Saddam's brutality was not sufficient cause for war just by itself, since there are numerous brutal dictators across the globe.

However, Saddam's brutality does help with several liberal attacks on President Bush, such as the false impression that Iraq was a paradise before we liberated it, arguments that the Iraqi people are so much worse off now, etc.

security" and Darfur isn't.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Which part?

comment on matters of national security and the use of military force.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.