> People of conscience are convinced that
> a genocide is in progress (like me in
> re: Kosova) and hope against hope that
> the Gov would do something about it,
> and not out of narrow self-interest.
> The feared magnitude of the abuse
> logically encourages one to discount the
> potential drawbacks of intervention.
>
> The burden of any critique in my view is
> giving the participants the benefit of
> the doubt, and from that standpoint
> providing evidence and argument in
> criticism of the action.
The issue is very delicate, because it's about comparing two evils. But what chance have the presumed good intentions of those who demand military intervention in Sudan from the U.S. government to translate into good actions *and* good results by the U.S. government? As far as I know, there is no precedent in modern history that would allow us to presume that the U.S. or any other Western state can lead a benevolent military intervention in a poor Muslim country. None.
Frankly, a U.S. military intervention in Sudan -- especially *at this time*, with the U.S. occupying Iraq against the will of Arabs and the international public, with the U.S. threatening another Muslim country (Iran) with nuclear bombs, without any serious legal (not to mention legitimate) regional or international validation -- has no chance of improving upon the existing situation in Sudan. None.
Again, there is no international legal framework for the U.S. government -- assuming heroically it intended to do so -- to conduct a benevolent military intervention in Muslim Africa. The U.S. and its allies (e.g. Israel) have undermined that framework -- the UN and repeatedly violated international law. *First* we need to fix first what is within our reach to fix: change the regime in Washington as radically as we can. Then -- and *only then* -- we will be in a position to change the terms of this country's relation with the rest of the world. Then and only then we will be in a position to engage in meaningful international cooperation to deal with those problems abroad.
Jo Ellen Green Kaiser wrote:
> All of this is not to say that there might
> not be all kinds of back-door politics at
> work. Of course, Israel has interests in
> Sudan, as does the U.S. No one has
> clean hands. That just means that any
> intervention needs to be well policed by
> people like those on this list.
How do you suggest that the people on this list police U.S. military interventions abroad so that the policing is effective? For example, what kind of policing by the people on this list would have prevented, say, torture in Abu Ghraib, the destruction of Fallujah, or Halliburton's stealing of our tax money?
As the world becomes more globalized, the need for international cooperation to deal *fairly* with ethnic and civil wars, regional conflicts, diseases, shared environmental problems, etc. increases. But right now those mechanisms do not exist. At this point, stopping the U.S. from intervening abroad at all is a lesser evil.
Julio