December 6th, 2006

Brad @ Burning Man

Don't Save Darfur

Notice that it's a little quiet in Blogistan today? We're all waiting for the Baker-Hamilton report. Probably to savage it.

But it occurred to me that I'm so sick and tired of the Save Darfur TV ads that this was a good time to go look at SaveDarfur.com, the url that's mentioned in those advertisements, and see what in the heck they actually want Congress and the President to do in order to Save Darfur. I figured it would be a bad idea. I was wrong. Calling the proposals at SaveDarfur.com a bad idea is an injustice to the world of merely bad ideas. These ideas aren't merely bad, they're legendarily bad. They're Madeline Albright bad. Which turns out not to be a coincidence. After reading the SaveDarfur website, it occurred to me to Google "madeline albright darfur" and no surprise. It is one of her bad ideas. Hey, what do you know, people: the woman whose bullying over his opposition to our getting involved in the Yugoslav civil war turned Colin Powell into a Republican, the woman who brought us Black Hawk Down, the woman whose hand-designed "humanitarian intervention" in Somalia single-handedly inspired Osama bin Laden to think that attacking New York City was a good idea, absolutely demands that we do it again.

So we are brought face to face with the post-modern absurdity that is the sight of some liberals demanding that George Bush withdraw our troops from a religiously-inspired civil war in an Islamic country, so that we can go about the much much more important duty of involving our troops in a religiously-inspired civil war in an Islamic country.

Don't believe me? If you signed the damned petition for the Save Darfur campaign, here is what you asked your congressman to vote for, straight off of the Save Darfur campaign's website:
  • Increased US funding for UN and African Union peacekeeping forces in Sudan: Not an inherently bad idea, just futile and guaranteed to prolong the fighting. Not enough UN or pan-African forces to conquer Sudan, no political will to try, just enough troops thrown into the meatgrinder to keep the refugees rounded up in nice handy camps where the Sudanese government can find them when they get around to exterminating them in earnest. Ah, but she's thought of that:

  • NATO assistance in Darfur: And there you have it. She wants the US, plus yet another "coalition of the willing" if we can round them up, to invade Sudan. But not conquer it, no. Just occupy it, taking incoming attacks from the Sudanese army, from Sudanese terrorist militias that are already in existence and well trained, and from any terrorist group anywhere in the world who wants to attack us for occupying yet another Islamic country. And use those troops to keep the Sudanese Christian and pagan minorities rounded up in refugee camps where we can guard them, until we withdraw just like we're going to do in Iraq eventually, so they can be rounded up and slaughtered with the maximum efficiency just like Saddam did to the Kurds after we sold them down the river the last time. Oh, but that won't happen, presumably. Why not? Because once the shooting has stopped, Smart People (like Madeleine Albright?) will talk the Sudanese Islamists into living in peace and harmony with their Christian and pagan neighbors. Yeah, right, that's going to work.
Look, I know of no reason why anybody in the United States has any good reason to care what one Sudanese does to another Sudanese. None. Whatsoever. None of our business. Not our people, not our friends, not anybody we made any promises to. But if we really, really cared and wanted to do something that would actually work? We wouldn't be talking about militarily occupying Sudan. We'd be talking about getting those people out of Darfur. Those people don't need to be in refugee camps "guarded" by the African Union or the UN or NATO or the US. They need to be out of there, in some country where it's legal to not be a Muslim.