The U.S. is ready on Sudan . . . to commit the UN!
ADVERTISEMENT: "Save the People of Darfur," by Save Darfur (reprint of John McCain and Bob Dole WAPO op-ed "Rescue Darfur Now" as seen 10 September 2006), New York Times, 15 September 2006, p. A9.Bush challenges the world to force Sudan to accept UN troops.ARTICLE: "Bush and Sudan's Leader at Odds Over Sending U.N. Troops to Calm Darfur," by Warren Hoge, New York Times, 20 September 2006, p, ??.
John McCain and Bob Dole also go out on this bold limb. Their five-point plan includes all sorts of visionary leadership: U.S. rejects Sudan's demand that the African Union troops leave and demands a UN force (ooh!), the U.S. tells the EU to impose sanctions (double ooh!), NATO should create a no-fly zone (always bold to commit other countries' troops), the U.S. should push other countries for troop commitments and promise to fly them there (ditto), we should use our intell nets to record atrocities in the meantime (always nice), and the U.S. should lean on Sudan's allies (read, China) to force them to force Sudan to accept UN troops. In short, it's the UN's problem and John McCain and Bob Dole are committed to keeping it that way. Knowing the UN's record on the subject of Africa, this is tantamount to saying "let's not do a goddamn thing ourselves and thus ensure nothing will change."
Since this is basically the Bush Administration's position, Dole and McCain basically endorse our current efforts at avoiding anything to do with this genocide (but constantly hectoring the Europeans to do something about it).
Isn't it cool how we totally blow off the UN when we want to go overseas with our troops and then hold it up as some amazingly all-powerful force when we don't want to send our troops overseas?
Saying you want the UN to run the show is essentially saying you want nothing done, whether you're a cynical politician or an interventionist do-gooder. Sudan's government has no fear of the UN, and will ignore its entreaties and demands ad infinitum. China, hungry for Sudan's oil and pouring in aid, will do the same. Everyone knows that when the U.S. begs off with its military, the conversation on intervention is over--save for the documenting of the war crimes. All this intellectual sturm-und-drang and cool pleas in major newspapers are great for making one feel like you're really doing something to help the people of Sudan, but what's really needed here is a Core-wide understanding of when and under what conditions the U.S. Leviathan/SysAdmin combo are unleashed, with the latter receiving the troop commitments it needs to stay whatever course we engage upon.
We don't have that A-to-Z system for processing politically bankrupt states that I describe in BFA, so it only takes a couple of bad iterations (Afghanistan, Iraq) to create a huge ripple effect throughout the system. We now have NATO effectively tied down in Afghanistan (yes, that small a number actually ties down NATO) and the U.S. is tied down in Iraq. Oh, and we've got a pick-up team of 5k or so peacekeepers in Lebanon--mostly from Europe. So that leaves the AU troops for all of Africa, and we see where that gets us.
The interventionary left doesn't want U.S. military interventions because they're inherently evil. The isolationist right doesn't want UN military anything because they're inherently evil. Between them they effectively keep anything of significance from happening in places like Africa.
Connecting the employment of the U.S. military to some larger global rule set is logical and inevitable. Until it is, we'll have ineffective U.S.-led coalition efforts and non-existent ones led by anybody else. That way, both the left and the right can feel good about making sure the Gap's mass murderers remain safe from the U.S. military's grasp.
Comments
In fairness though, what do we have to send?
As I understand it the Navy and AF are not under strain because of Iraq and Afghan, but the Army and Marines don't have spare brigades to send on such an adventure. Other than that I'd say let's go, go yesterday, and get this filthy bidness over.
Now, would someone else be willing to send their crunchies if we were doing all the heavy lift and supplying almost all the air, or even a rather token ground force? I strongly doubt that(for political reasons and for the inter-operability problem. Canadians get really pissed about the CAS we've been giving them). They'd still call it sending their troops, or worse.
If we had them I'd say send them. But we don't have them. And that's one of the prime questions('do we have the means?' and 'do we have the will?') that have to be asked before anything gets done.
Sysadmin is expensive(all them people we'd have to pay salaries and benefits too, and deal with competition from Executive Adventures or Blackwater for). Sysadmin and LEviathan look like a double monkey to many(same). If we had them this is full 'Thunderbirds are GO', but we don't and aren't likely to have them any time soon. Life's a beach.
Don't slip into ennui over this.
Posted by: ry | September 24, 2006 2:41 AM
The sad part is we should have the majority of our troops back and rested by now and have a force in place working on the next step.
Posted by: S | September 24, 2006 5:48 PM
There are very strong political motives causing Bush to want to work within the UN system. First, I would suggest that Bush really does want to stop a genocide in Sudan. Indeed, the US seems to be trying to get the international community to do something. However, I would also suggest that the Bush administration has taken too much political heat within the US and around the world for "going at it alone" in Iraq.
By going through the UN Bush is doing two things very effectively. First, he is showing, to the US public and international community, the poor ability of the United Nations to respond to international crisis and the lack of will by most of the international community to do anything about this problem. Second, he is trying to remove the taint of the warmonger that goes to war without international support and cooperation. While this will probably not improve his image at home and around the world, it will prevent it from becoming worse. Hopefully this could have a net positive effect on operations that are currently being conducted.
In the end I expect these efforts on the part of Bush may be helpful at a later date to help reform and improve the UN and international standards for intervention but will do little to nothing for the Sudanese population.
Posted by: Mark Phillips | September 24, 2006 10:22 PM
It's just a lecture to the UN, with nothing substantive behind it; empty rhetoric. It fundamentally comes down to: Dafur is not considered a threat to the US, and as such the US is not doing anything about it. And, it is hypocracy that the Bush administration is being critical of UN action (or lack thereof) in Darfur, all the while refuting all criticism of its own complete unilateral invasion of Iraq, including the subsequent poor planning. Let's see what next year brings.
Posted by: Tigger | September 25, 2006 12:04 PM
There are a number of good reasons for pushing Darfur at the UN. If the UN can get their act together enough to do something about the war crimes there, that would be a good thing. If they can't, it will increase popular sentiment in the US to pitch that useless artifact of the 1940s onto the ash heap of history which while not as good as stopping the genocide is still a good thing.
It also serves to shame those Europeans who are capable of shame and gives those Core nation citizens who are willing to look beyond the reflexive antiamerican cant of their media just what is the alternative to American military action. After Rwanda, Srebrenica and now Darfur maybe it will only take another couple of dozen genocides for the progressive elites to conclude that American intervention might not be the worst possible thing that could happen. That would be a good thing.
Posted by: Mark in Texas | September 25, 2006 11:10 PM
How exactly did the U.S. blow off the UN? I specifically remember us going to the UN over Iraq, working with the UN and patiently awaiting for UN sanctions/insepctors to do their job...
Posted by: Steven![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 26, 2006 1:50 PM