Darfur Genocide
* One of the world’s most appalling recent genocides is made more disturbing by a hard to face truth. Darfur was not, and is not, logistically easy or perhaps even possible to intervene in to stop the atrocities.
* The killings began on a mass scale in April of 2004, and at this writing have not stopped. A series of militias made up largely of Arab Muslim northerners is killing largely Black African Christians in the south and west. The militias are Sudanese government funded, armed, trained, and supported politically.
* Numerous political leaders called the mass killings genocide, including President GW Bush and his Secretary of State Colin Powell on several occasions. Some others declined to call it genocide. Either way, it is definitely atrocities on a massive scale against noncombatants, which is both the UN and the dictionary definition of genocide.
* So why didn’t either president intervene in the Darfur genocide?
* Darfur is remote and not easily accessible to any world’s military except the Sudan’s. Darfur is 1200 miles from the nearest seaport, one controlled by Sudan. It is 700 miles from the nearest major airport, again one controlled by Sudan, in the capital Khartoum. There are not even any paved roads into Darfur.
* A rescue effort would have to get permission from the Sudanese government to land at its port or airport and send a large military force perhaps seven hundred to twelve hundred miles away. But since Clinton ordered a missile attack on Sudan in 1998, the country's leaders are not on friendly terms with the US or other western nations. A land rescue effort might have to conquer all of Sudan itself, a country five times the size of Texas, most of it desert and much of it very mountainous.
* Once there, the military rescue effort would then have to fight against militias that know the land extremely well and are very mobile. This force would have to be supplied over extremely long supply lines, and the lines would themselves need to be defended.
* It is not hard to see that the military force necessary might easily be much larger as that invading Iraq or Afghanistan. Keep in mind some advised that 200,000 to 300,000 troops were what was required for Iraq, and Sudan is much larger. Likely half a million troops might be needed. US public opinion would not support such an invasion, especially after the failed quagmires in other wars. Winning public support is made even more difficult by most Americans not knowing anything about the Sudan.
* What about just using air power? Again, Darfur is extremely remote. The militias are not a fixed target either. Bombing could cause them quite a bit of casualties, but probably not stop the genocide entirely. In fact, such bombing could make matters even worse. The militias may take out their anger on the people of Darfur.
* What about using air power on the government of Sudan? Couldn’t that pressure them to stop arming the militias? Perhaps, but Sudan has been bombed by the US before. When Clinton sent missile attacks aimed at an alleged chemical weapons factory for Al Qaeda, the factory turned out to be making medicines. Clinton’s bombing killed hundreds, and by some estimates deprived the country of much of its medical needs, killing thousands indirectly. Sudan’s government is not on good terms with the US anyway, and it would take quite a lot of bombing to pressure them. Sudan has little economically the west wants, and vice versa. This basically leaves diplomatic and political pressure, and Clinton’s bumbled bombing makes even that unlikely to work.
* Of the two presidents, GW Bush has done the most, albeit still not much. In fairness to Bush and all others facing the difficulties of trying to deal with matters this horrific, in part nothing is done because there are so many limits on what can reasonably be done. Bush did condemn the genocide, and actually called it genocide. Obama, perhaps because of fear of a quagmire, has not even addressed the genocide or pressured Sudan in any way.
* Partly this is because of their respective voting bases. Bush’s included many conservative Christians, and he is one himself, appalled by deaths of their fellow Christians. Many in Obama’s base, which include both liberal Christians and human rights activists, are likewise outraged. But Obama has long taken pride in ignoring those in his base to his left, even openly mocking them.
* Could at least humanitarian aid be offered? This has been done, largely by non-state actors. It is also interesting to note that, as often as conservatives bash Hollywood celebrities for activism (even while voting for Reagan or Schwarzenegger) those who have done quite a bit on Darfur include actors George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Don Cheadle, and Matt Damon. The four of them sponsor the charity Not On Our Watch, which funds a spy satellite to monitor for evidence of genocide. All four take advantage of their celebrity to focus attention on the genocide. Condemnation and watchfulness, perhaps diplomatic isolation, are the limits of what can done, and it is being done.