Under this leadership, anything bad can happen. But there were also better times, like WW2 or Suez or even Haiti (judging from the right wing opposition to this intervention.) The point that I am making is not that the USAF should let the hell loose to stop genocide (which is absurd), but that the US can and did play positive roles by both military and non-military means.
=====================================
Well yes, but WW2 was a very long time ago. There is no one currently in a command position who appears to possess the strategic talents (putting moral questions aside for a moment) of the American imperialists of that era.
And I wouldn't use right-wing opposition to an intervention as a guide to its wisdom or morality. Remember, there was right-wing opposition to War Plan Iraq, much of it from the 'realist' camp that objected to the invasion's timing and objectives. I hope no one here would argue that because there was such opposition, the assault on Iraq must have been a good idea.
You wrote: "The point that I am making is not that the USAF should let the hell loose to stop genocide (which is absurd), but that the US can and did play positive roles by both military and non-military means."
Now here's where things get interesting.
My counter argument is that we must stop talking about what US diplomatic efforts and military power MIGHT do and acknowledge what it is MOST LIKELY to do. I'll let others, better versed in the ins and outs of the State Dept tackle the issue of whether or not US diplomatic efforts are in good faith and of any use. What I'm most familiar with is the military side of things. And what I'm telling you is that the US has a particular style of war - it is air power heavy because that's the field of operation in which the US is unchallenged. Curtis LeMay pioneered and sharpened this in the Pacific War. Colin Powell carried the idea forward with new tools during Gulf War One.
Even if Iraq and Afghanistan weren't burning up a large percentage of the Pentagon's ground combat units and logistical capabilities the air power doctrine would rule. But those efforts are serious drains and so the dependence upon bombardment is even greater than usual.
If Washington is involved it will, as I stated before, insist upon doing things its way and its way will bring the USAF to town.
Absurd? Yes, of course but that is how things would probably develop if a Darfur peacekeeping operation was executed by Washington.
This, along with the usual cautions about imperialist agendas, would have a serious impact upon the actual shape of any US effort and its usefulness in decisively ending the slaughter.
.d.
--------- "For ten years Caesar ruled with an iron fist. Then with a wooden leg; and finally with a piece of string."