Genocide continues. Regrettably, the massive rally in Washington last Sunday did not stop the slaughter of Darfuris, though it did highlight what has come to be the (toothless) consensus opinion in this country: Something must be done. I believe military intervention is now the only option, but pacifist progressives (and isolationists and realists) say they have reservations about it. Herein, I shall dispatch them.
First, very quickly, here’s why — if you believe the genocide must be stopped immediately — no other options are left. (a) The African Union will do nothing because its force is slim and its mandate is limiting, and African nations show no intention of expanding it. (b) The United Nations will do nothing because oil-hungry China and Russia, both of which wield veto power and do not wish to offend Sudan, and because the body consists of sovereign nations that view sovereignty as inviolable. (c) NATO will do nothing because its European members, despite incontrovertible evidence, do not believe genocide is happening in Darfur.
The arguments against military intervention are straightforward. The first, and most credible, says that our military is already overstretched. This is true, though it is also irrelevant. The Janjaweed militias — Khartoum’s proxies responsible for most of the killing, raping, torture, displacement and mutilation — maraud in Darfur on camel- and horseback. Their weapons are machetes, rifles and, occasionally, machine guns; they do not possess artillery. Sometimes they are assisted by modified Antonovs in Sudan’s air force. A few airstrikes against the Janjaweed and the Antonovs (which Sudan obviously prizes more than human life) should send the message. All of this can be arranged from Langley in a matter of minutes.
A more understandable fear is that, like Iraq, Darfur could become a quagmire. The Bush administration promised Americans a quick and easy march to Baghdad, where we would be greeted as liberators and turn the country to democracy. But Iraq is different than Sudan. Liberals agitating for military intervention don’t need (or want) to transform Sudanese society. In fact, they don’t want to topple the government or even install bases. The only goal is to get Khartoum out of the slaughtering business and to keep it out. This does not require legions of Marines patrolling the countryside.
Another argument postulates that attacks on a Muslim country will galvanize the militants of al-Qaida (which was based in Sudan before Bill Clinton made the government expel Osama bin Laden in 1996), who will flow in through Sudan’s porous borders to fight us. For one thing, they’ll have a hard time finding a foe if our attacks are conducted by air. But, for another, we should want this. If intervention in Darfur distracts al-Qaida operatives from planning more terrorism — and if it flushes those operatives into a country that shares intelligence with us and lacks a large, sympathetic population (like they have in northwest Pakistan) — we’ll have much better luck killing them.
Two final objections remain. One says that we will only anger the Muslim world by intervening again in a Muslim country. The solution, of course, is to make our intervention and be done, showing (truthfully) that our aims are humanist, not imperialist.
The other is the most bogus of all: It puts stock in the peace talks between Sudan and Darfuri rebels just concluded in Abuja. There’s no need to romanticize the rebels to see also that perpetrating genocide on their hometowns is not an acceptable way to induce peace. Besides, Khartoum violated its 2004 ceasefire, blocked humanitarian access to Darfur, and has already said it may not allow in U.N. troops (which the agreement stipulates); there’s no reason to think this development will change things at all.
Adam B. Kushner is assistant managing editor of the New Republic.
