Tuesday, March 25, 2008
3 Days Ammunition
Thats how little force it would take from a US led attack to disable the military forces of the Sudanese government, predicts Mark Helprin, a conservative commentator, in an op-ed piece in the New York Times. But that would be a worst case scenario, where we park a couple aircraft carriers off the coast of Sudan in the Red Sea, and the Sudanese government actually refuses to meet international demands to lay down its arms, cease its support of the janjaweed militias, and allow UN peacekeeping forces into areas controlled by government military forces where dire humanitarian conditions persist. The most likely scenario is that just the threat of complete military annihilation and subsequent replacement of leadership with democratically elected officials would be enough to convince the Sudanese that complying with peacekeeping forces is in their best interest.
I am not a pacifist, but the use of military force for anything less than the most dire of circumstances has always struck me as irresponsible, such as the current US occupation of Iraq. But the conflict in Darfur is serious enough, so many innocent peoples lives have been lost and are still in jeopardy, that to stand idly by and do nothing is morally reprehensible.
If the current leadership in The United States is unable to measure the gravity of the situation in Darfur and react appropriately, they need either immediate attitude adjustment or replacement - no different than their counterparts in the Sudan.