Michael, while I agree with much of what you say, and am horrified by what is happening in Sudan, there's alot we have to consider before talking intervention.

First, we're still up to our ears in Iraq. We barely have enough spare capacity to fulfill all the committments we've already made. And don't forget that we're STILL in kosovo. A looming crisis in Korea could deplete us further, and such crises will be timed by powers taking advantage of America's current state of activity.

Second, I'm not convinced that bombing alone will convince Sudan to stop. Different culture, different situation. Different government, too, more willing to accept civilian casualties. They may well look at our previous military interventions in the Islamic world and decide to try to hang in there until we lose interest or lose our nerve.

And if escalation from bombing isn't in the cards from day one, they may just decide to tough it out. With Yugoslavia, we had large ground forces (heavy tank formations from the Cold War) in-theater.

As a practical matter, where will our air power stage from? Do we park our carriers in the Red Sea? If not, which country would host us? How will we provide site security, fuel, bombs? Who do we get our overflight rights from? Ethiopia and Eritrea are near war. Uganda has its own problems. Kenya might do it, or might not. Our new pal Libya wouldn't, and I'll bet Egypt won't either. I'm not up on the CAR or Chad, but I know the DRC isn't exactly a friendly power either.

Anyway, I feel for the people in Darfur. And I totally agree, this is genocide, and someone needs to do something. But superman is already saving the world in two other countries right now, and our capabilities may not be up to our aspirations.

Posted by: rob at August 22, 2005 04:29 AM

I think that we could do a fairly effective, strictly air campaign there without having too great an effect on our other current operations. That would perhaps put things on more of an equal footing for the different entities on the ground. I think that is really the only option, unless somone else wants to commit ground troops.

Posted by: exhelodrvr at August 22, 2005 06:01 AM

There may be some realpolitik going on as well. I've got a journalist friend here who shared with me a rumor that there is some covert cooperation going on between the U.S. and Sudan regarding another theater of operations here in the middle east.

Posted by: MarkC at August 22, 2005 06:14 AM

There's a lot we could do that we're not, and should be.

Posted by: TallDave at August 22, 2005 06:38 AM

An important question to ask is: will people who consider this a real problem actually do anything about it? Will they, say, lobby their elected leaders to use force to try and fix Sudan, and then join the armed forces to help accomplish this?

I can imagine a scenario in which a lot of conservatives could get on board with this: we could find some wealthy conservative backers who would pay to start some American Brigades to go over and fight in Sudan. It means action, even if the government does nothing, and it'll be an example of the free market in action. The idealists will get to help the people of Darfur. You could even recruit some of the neo-Nazi border militia movement, because they'd get to shoot black people, and some LGF commenters, because those black people dress like Arabs. Everyone wins! Except for the bad guys, of course.

But seriously...has anyone proposed an actual solution to this problem which is actually feasible and actually has a chance of winning popular support?

Posted by: The Commenter at August 22, 2005 06:42 AM

I was previously inclined to the view that international intervention in Sudan would be a good thing, but when I see it promoted by a fellow like Michael Totten, who has learnt nothing from being wrong about everything, and featured on a website that is funded by ExxonMobil with the purpose of promoting the denial of human-induced climate change, a looming disaster that will ultimately cost more innocent life through famine and war than Sudan and Saddam combined and multiplied, I am forced to reconsider.

That said, U.S. involvement in any such intervention has been rendered entirely hypothetical in any case by the failure of the ideological folly in Iraq. The U.S. is now not militarily capable of intervention, and the current Administration has finally mangaged to convince a very patient public that it couldn't be trusted to manage a bake sale in a cake factory.

Given all that, any suggestion that the U.S. should intervene in Darfur is just empty moral posturing.

Which is par for the course.

Posted by: Mitch at August 22, 2005 07:06 AM

Michael- Don't underestimate the geographic challenges of a country like sudan. Its HUGE and largely unaccessable. The best bet is to use african peacekeepers who require little logistical support and using special forces to arm and train the non-arabs in the west and south. Look at a map of sudan and there are virtually no roads leading into darfur. Also bear in mind the europeans will do nothing, the chinese have oil interests there, and the iranians have been involved quietly there for decades (they have long-term leases on several ports). Hopefully Bush will follow through and force some sort of permanent solution on this nightmare of a country.

Commenter- Christian missionaries have been active in the southern areas for years trying to bring attention to the slave trade (though their purchasing slaves may be a bad idea). Liberals like yourself have never given a rat's ass about such things as it lacks the requisite political angle for y'all to start going hysterical. Very sad.

Posted by: Raymond at August 22, 2005 07:19 AM

Raymond, there are liberal and conservative charity groups active all over the world trying to fix things.

What I was trying to point out was that a) the problem in Sudan is massive and no obvious solution presents itself and b) a lot of people who say they want to fix things will end up doing nothing. Thank you for helping to illustrate b). After all, so long as people who might be tangentially associated with you ideologically are doing something, you can feel like you're doing something, or at least feel like you're in a strong enough position to criticize other people for not doing anything. All while you're not doing anything!

It's not a good thing when political leanings turn into some sort of tribal identity whereby the actions of some with your political identity can be used as justification for your own inaction.

Posted by: The Commenter at August 22, 2005 07:34 AM

Michael- I've read your site for a long time, and I've often appreciated the analysis you've brought to any number of issues. I must say, however, while I appreciate the attention you are bringing to this issue, your article is woefully, woefully misinformed.

Firstly, and somewhat trivially, don't cite the Genocide Intervention Fund for statistics. Its a group started by a bunch of students at Swarthmore, and the numbers they use are inflated estimates of the total number who have died- at the hands of the Janjaweed and in the camps. Your suggestion that 400,000 have been "murdered" is misleading.

Before I make a point about the "genocide" issue, though, I want to mention one more thing. The Sudanese army isn't anything the US couldn't handle, or anything a lot of outher militaries couldn't handle, but its not as weak as you make it out to be. Bashir has tanks, too. And an air force. Russia and China have been selling him tanks and planes and heavey artillery since 1999. The air force, in fact, has been used in bombing campaigns in Darfur. The violence in Darfur escalated in the Spring of 2003 when a group of rebels loosely affiliated with the SPLA attacked a Sudanese airforce base in al-Fashir, murdered about 80 people, destroyed 4 airplanes and kidnapped a Sudanese Major-General. I don't know what makes you think an air campaign against Khartoum would be useful the way the air raids against Belgrade was useful in 1999. You start doing targeted bombing and you might as well ask Bashir to light up those refugee camps along the border- in the West and in the South.

Which brings me to my main point: how can you possibly talk about the Sudan in any useful way without mentioning the Civil War in the South? After 22 years and over 2 million dead, the peace process is finally under way with over 4 million refugees expected to return, and you want to start bombing Khartoum? Good grief!

In the last 22 years, there have been 4 or 5 wars within the Sudan- the Civil War, the Nuba Mountain War, the violence against the Nuer and Darfur. Darfur, in terms of violence, ranks last. I don't understand why Darfur has taken on Che-Guevara-tee-shirt trendiness, but energy and time spent on the Sudan is infinitely better spent on the Naivasha protocol- no solution can be reached in Darfur until we are further along in the civil war peace process.

Finally, the genocide issue. I've defined the Darfur conflict in the past as a competition for a finite amount of natural resources brought about by the expansion of the Sahara, the collapse of the Northern cotton crop, and a number of other factors largely unrelated to race and or religion. You mention Bashir used to work with bin Laden. You don't mention that he turned on him and tried to offer him up to the United States. Nor do you mention that he's imprisoned, exiled, purged and or killed the major Islamists in the Sudan. So I would like someone to answer a question for me, please: If the war in Darfur is a genocide- meaning, if it is a transparent effort on the part of Arab-Islamists to kill African-Christians- and if Bashir is leading this campaign of ethnic cleansing, why was Bashir, barely 8 months ago, willing to sign an historic peace treaty with the leader of the African-Christian community in the Sudan (John Garang)? Why did he go to Naivasha and shake the guy's hand and allow him to become the VP of the government? If Bashir is a racist and a Islamic supremacist, then why was he willing to do these things? Can anyone imagine Hitler signing a peace treaty with, and then shaking the hand of while mugging for the camera, a Jewish leader? That is the basic equivalent of what Bashir did at Naivasha.

And if he is so determined to go through all the trouble of killing 400,000 (I'll grant you the statistic for the purpose of this argument) "African-Christians" in Darfur, then why doesn't he kill the 4,000,000 African-Christians living in Khartoum, as well? Or the millions more in the Southern Sudan? If its all about killing black African-Christians, then why is he only concentrating on one region of the country?

I'm sorry, but those questions have to be answered by anyone who uses the g-word here. And the issue of the Naivasha Protocol has to be addressed. It would be wreckless to a horrific degree to think of the Darfur like Bosnia or Kosovo... or Rwanda, for that matter.

Posted by: Chris at August 22, 2005 08:22 AM

Commenter,

Glad to see you think nothing can be done. Problem solved! We can all go home now.

Michael,

What about Zimbabwe?

Posted by: chuck at August 22, 2005 08:26 AM

No, Chuck, I do not believe that because the problem is difficult that the problem is therefore solved.

I do, however, believe that there have been no feasible solutions suggested, and that a lot of people who loudly cry out for Something to Be Done without suggesting a feasible solution or offering to actually help, such as by suggesting an armed intervention for which they'd actually sign up, that most of this discussion is really just empty moral posturing.

I don't like what's happening in Zimbabwe, Nepal, or Tibet, to name a few. Shall we start dropping bombs now, or tomorrow?

Posted by: The Commenter at August 22, 2005 08:34 AM

Shall we start dropping bombs now, or tomorrow?

As the whine of the incoming strawman grew louder, Chuck ran for cover among the palms.

Posted by: chuck at August 22, 2005 09:24 AM

Zing! You got me there, Chuck, since all I could come up with was a strawma...

Oh, wait, look at this! From exhelodrvr:

"I think that we could do a fairly effective, strictly air campaign there without having too great an effect on our other current operations."

At least he's actually suggesting a policy, though I'm not quite sure how feasible it is. Which is more than I could say for you, Chuck! I, for one, believe we should invade Sudan with a pretend army that's not busy occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, I'd never want to sign up and actually risk getting hurt, but I want other (pretend) soldiers to risk their lives for my moral satisfaction. After all, why should I risk my neck when I'm doing important work by trying to convince the readers of Mr. Totten's blog to support this policy?

Posted by: The Commenter at August 22, 2005 09:53 AM

I do, however, believe that there have been no feasible solutions suggested, and that a lot of people who loudly cry out for Something to Be Done without suggesting a feasible solution ...(means that) most of this discussion is really just empty moral posturing.--Commenter

Against my natural inclinations and with much internal angst, I have to agree with Commenter on this. I think we could do without the 'signing up and risking getting hurt' diversion so I am simply ignoring that part of his post, but otherwise I feel he is on the right track.

Apart from the problem that I do not really believe that intervention is necessarily in the best interests of the US at this time, the lack of a workable means of intervening virtually precludes any meaningful actions. Commenter is absolutely correct to say that words absent any likely and/or possible actions are not meaningful in themselves.

We have not defined the exact goals; we don't have any real idea of the likely results; we don't have any concrete comprehension of the expected duration or the COSTS, and last but not least there are no 'boots on the ground' to do the job(whatever that job might be).

Good intentions without cold-blooded calculations backing them up are a road to nowhere. What exactly are our interests in this ? How important are they ? Are there other areas of the world were committment of the same resources would have a much greater and more useful result? Do we even have the resources to do anything useful apart from some short-term bandaid processes?

Humanitarianism is NOT a Foreign Policy.

Posted by: dougf at August 22, 2005 11:19 AM

Too bad there isn't a functional United Nations-type organization where this problem might be discussed and possibly addressed. Instead, I suspect the only thing that would make the situation worse would be to involve the U.N.

Now, if there were economic incentives for certain Ghana diplomats to do something constructive, maybe some good could be done...

Nah, too much wishful thinking there, even for us chickenhawks.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 22, 2005 11:19 AM

I think we have stumbled on the ideal solution. Lets not do anything, but we can take advantage of the situation to bash the UN a bit.

Posted by: at August 22, 2005 11:34 AM

Oh, I think we should do something, I just don't know what. Suggestions are welcome; I'm not up-to-speed on the issues, and would welcome cost-benefit analyses of our options. Please give me some links if you have them.

But yes, bashing the U.N. should be done at every opportunity, and this is a golden one; what's happening in The Sudan should be, I think, one of the primary things the U.N. is supposed to prevent. The fact that it can't (or won't) seems pretty damning to me.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 22, 2005 11:59 AM

(sigh)
Here we go again.

When the UN does anything in situations like this, it is a function of the diplomacy that occurs between (mainly) the permanent members of the Security Council. The UN, as an institution unto itself, does not have the power or authority to do anything. You want to blame someone? Blame the governments of the permanent members of the SC.

So here is a hint Mark. Investigate the possibilites of what can feasably be done by anyone, before you criticize anyone. Then, if you decide that something can be done, and can articulate what that something is, and you note that it isnt being done, then criticize them that could be doing it.

Otherwise you just sound like a jerk.

Posted by: Observer at August 22, 2005 12:21 PM

Otherwise you just sound like a jerk.

Hee hee hee. Commenter, if you were a dog you could sniff your own ass instead of posting here.

Posted by: chuck at August 22, 2005 12:25 PM

A lot of people don't think anything about the U.N. needs to be fixed. In such an environment, I don't think pointing out that the damned thing is broken is a bad thing.

Or, in other words, pointing out that the emperor has no clothes should not be the sole province of tailors.

Ob, I'd be perfectly happy to see the U.S. withdraw from the UN and let the remaining members hash things like The Sudan out on their own. I suspect the result would be an endless string of resolutions calling for U.S. action, and when those actions would be in the U.S. interest, I'd be happy to see the U.S. acquiesce. But in the meantime, I really don't give a rat's ass about why the UN is so dysfunctional. As is, it does almost no good and does much harm, and as such it needs to go.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 22, 2005 12:37 PM

Just what I thought Mark. You have not a clue about what to do about the Darfur situation, the subject of this thread. And you have nothing better to do with your life, apparently, then barge in to repeat the usual RW rant about the UN, for the millionth time.
Thank you for your contribution. There may well be a medal for you in all this.

Posted by: Observer at August 22, 2005 12:54 PM

Ob, your contribution so far has been to smear me. (At least I was going for bigger game...)

Thank you for your demonstration of polite debate tactics.

An effective alternative to the United Nations would be beneficial in situations such as the one in The Sudan. As long as the UN exists in it's current form, no such alternative can be created. Therefore, the existence of the UN makes situations such as The Sudan harder to resolve.

The UN gives individual nations cover for doing nothing when doing nothing is the easiest path. When it comes to The Sudan, by far the easiest thing for most nations is to do nothing. Therefore, the United Nations makes it much more likely nothing will be done.

Clear enough? The United Nations is part of the problem, because it makes a real solution more difficult.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 22, 2005 01:25 PM

Mark-

Just what is "the situation" in regards to the Sudan? Give a summary of what you think the problem(s) are, what they stem from, and how you think "an effective alternative to the UN" would be able to improve "the situation."

Details, please. I'm very curious.

Posted by: Chris at August 22, 2005 01:50 PM

Something that needs to be taken into consideration re U.S. action is that anything that we do militarily (unless under U.N. auspices) will end up having an overall negative impact, from a PR perspective.

Posted by: exhelodrvr at August 22, 2005 02:10 PM

Now I get it Mark,
Instead of the UN as it currently exists, you want an alternative institution that has the power and the authority (and the moral vision) to intervene in soverign countries to solve problems, without having to bother with the niceties of international diplomacy.

And I dont want to put words in your mouth, but I will make the assumption that you are against the idea of a world government, and you are against the notion of America is the world's policeman or imperial ruler.

So what exactly are you talking about?

Posted by: Observer at August 22, 2005 02:13 PM

The US Military has been intervening in the Horn of Africa for quite some time. Yes, it is mostly Special Operations Command People(Civil Affairs) but it is not at all secret.

New concept in warfare...skip the bombing...just drive around Africa doing hearts and minds sort of work.
Who's Army is going to stop US Special Forces from drilling wells and vaccinating sheep? Is there going to be a UN Security Council debate over the American Army running around helping poor people? Which leader is going to complain that his people are getting clean drinking water?

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2005/20050818_2480.html

Posted by: Solder's Dad at August 22, 2005 02:16 PM

Chris, you are usually far more up to speed on the facts about Sudan, but when you rant about "African-Christians" in Darfur I don't know what you're talking about.

Michael didn't mention they are black-Muslims being murdered by African Arab Muslims; you know very well that most in Darfur are Muslim.

Your note about the black-Christian / Arab civil war in the South is important.

There was a little mention about the Chinese interest in Sudan, and the oil. China has 4000 security troops in Sudan, as well. And the Arabs have pushed the N/S border south so that little of the oil is under the Christians. Those Chinese soldiers/ workers mean China will veto anything at the UN.

Kofi Annan should still call it genocide in Darfur -- and if China vetoes it, it's occupying Tibet (illegally), too.

The US should be working with other democracies to set up an international (NATO based?) Human Rights Enforcement Group, of democratic nations (only), who will, in coalitions of the willing, protect people whose human rights are being violated by their governments.

Until some international org or agreement is set up, the US should only use words of condemnation -- including against Amnesty & Human Rights Watch, for not calling it genocide.

Michael, you failed to note that there are some 52 indictments of war crimes, from the UN / ICC, which Sudan has said they will handle.

Mark is correct here -- the UN should be verbally bashed, every opportunity, because it is, in practice, an obstructionist / pro-dictator org. Let Kofi complain about the Chinese veto -- but push the intervention issue until China DOES veto.

Increased US cash to neighbors seems one thing that could help; reduction of US cash to Egypt, the Northern Islamic neighbor of Sudan, could also help. (Egypt's waste of US aid is another sad scandal.)

Air bombing is better than noting/ acceptance. Arming & supporting the Southern Christian "rebels" might be excellent, too -- especially if they don't want the oil-land.

I've long supported cantonization / break up rather than civil war. (Like the Slovak velvet divorce from the Czechs.) The UN "freeze" on border changes was premature -- until the world is full of democracies.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 22, 2005 02:26 PM

And I dont want to put words in your mouth, but I will make the assumption that you are against the idea of a world government, and you are against the notion of America is the world's policeman or imperial ruler.

I actually believed (once upon a time) that a world government would be a good thing ASAP; then I started paying attention to the UN work product, and had a re-think.

I also think that if we don't manage to knock ourselves as a species back to a pre-industrial state, then eventually we'll have a world government, good thing or not.

So yes, I think we're off to a bad start, which makes it REALLY important to go back to the drawing board sooner rather than later.

As to what's wrong in the Sudan, same old same old: one group of bastards is trying to drive another group (who may or may not be bastards) to extinction. Looks like another threat to world peace. Send the envoy. (Points to those of you who get the reference...)

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 22, 2005 03:13 PM

Tom-

I was sort of being sarcastic, but perhaps it didn't come across. So many people frame the conflict(s) in the Sudan in primordial terms- pitting Arabs against Africans and Muslims against Christians- but none of that stuff holds up to scrutiny. And if you don't have primordial causes for violence, then you really can't have a genocide, can you?

Michael made a similar mistake in the opening sentence of his essay for TCS... "Every day 500 black African Muslims are murdered by Islamists..." What is the point, first of all, in pointing out the race of the victims unless you believe race has something to do with the nature of the crime? But if race has nothing to do with the reason for the conflict in Darfur- and I'm still waiting for someone out there to try and make the case that it is the driving force behind the violence (Michael certainly doesn't even attempt to do it in the article... he just assumes it)- then why act like it does unless you are trying to peddle false assumptions or unless you are acting like you know something about something you don't.

I found it kind of funny that Michael said the Muslims being murdered in Darfur were being murdered by "Islamists." That would negate religion as a source of the violence, would it not? There is certainly no reason an Islamist couldn't be black or brown or white or yellow... Islam, as we all know, is a religion, not a race. So why mention religion at all? Michael, for him to continue calling this a "genocide," would then have to establish that this is just about Arabs killing black Africans... but there are black Africans all over the Sudan... indeed, there are more black Africans living within the city limits of Khartoum- the seat of this "genocidal regime"- then there ever were in Darfur. And the leader of this racist genocidal regime (sarcasm) just signed a peace treaty with the leader of the Sudan's black African population.

As I pointed out earlier, Totten's argument is bunk and ignorant of just about everything going on within the Sudan's borders. It is as if he read a couple of news clippings and then pretended like he was an expert. Which is probably what happened.

As for all the other stuff about China's involvement, etc... I didn't mention it in the post I hammered out in 5 minutes today (specifically 5000 troops fortified south of Bentiu)... I've talked about that stuff before (here and elsewhere).

I stand by my earlier reccommendations for the conflict: nurture the Naivasha protocol as much as possible, contribute aid to the Sudanese government for the reconstruction of the Northern cotton crop to reduce the need of Arab pastoralists from that region to make dry-season incursions into the Darfur region.

Posted by: Chris at August 22, 2005 03:29 PM

I stand by my earlier reccommendations for the conflict: nurture the Naivasha protocol as much as possible, contribute aid to the Sudanese government

You acknowledge that the Sudanese government is responsible for what the Bush government calls genocide (or for the mass murder of millions, but let's not quibble over details) - and then you recommend that we respect the status quo while giving this genocidal government lots of money to "solve" the problem.

I'm kind of speechless here. You really don't think we're very bright, do you? Does your day job involve the sale of used cars and/or bridges in Brooklyn?

Posted by: mary at August 22, 2005 04:19 PM

Mary- You're blatantly twisting my words, or not paying attention to them. The Bush Administration has referred to the war in Darfur as "genocide," but even the most inflated estimates put the total human cost of that war at around 300K (The more realistic ones, combining "combat" deaths and deaths related to the war (disease, famine, etc) are between 80K and 100K). The war in the Sudan that killed millions (roughly 2 million) is/was the Civil War that began in August/September 1983, escalated in 1985/1986 after Nimairi was ousted, and officially ended with the signing of the Naivasha Protocol by Bashir and Garang not long ago. These are different and entirely unrelated conflicts. The Bush Administration has not, to my knowledge, used the term "genocide" to describe the Civil War.

I'm recommending contributing aid to rebuild the Northern cotton crop/industry, because the demise of this important economic engine is one of the major underlying causes of the violence in Darfur. Dry season incursions into Darfur by nomadic camel herders aligned with the government are what started all of this stuff in the mid-1990's. The insurgency in the region began when "Darfurians" financed indirectly by aid groups decided the government wasn't doing enough to protect them from these incursions... when the insurgents overplayed their hand in 2003 with the attack on the airport in al-Fashir, that is when all hell broke loose.

I don't know how to address this problem, or any problem, without addressing the root causes. The root causes of the violence in Darfur are predominantly related to natural resources like rain water and grass. If you take away the need for the competition for those resources (one way to do this would be to improve the regional economy in the Northern Sudan), then you take away the violence. So I have suggested one plausible and practical way of doing something to improve the situation in the region without endangering the Naivasha Protocol, and without offending the local population on either side. I'm not sure exactly what you're reccommending, but if its invasion or substantial numbers of foreign peace keepers or something along those lines, then you're out of your mind. You would do more to endanger and imperil the chance for political reform/improvement in the Sudan then you would by staying away completely.

Bashir has nothing more to gain from fighting wars (the one in the South cost him $10 million per day (that he was able to finance that war for the entirety of his tenure is even more evidence of the fact that Totten's belief that the Sudanese army is a trivial entity is bogus and the product of lazy research)... he's got the oil, and he's got the defensive positions to protect those assets. What he is seeking now is some modicum of political stability that would allow him to open the Sudan up to the rest of the world. We should see that as an opportunity to gradually shape the internal politics of the Sudan through a policy of constructive engagement along the lines of our relationship with China immediately following the end of the Cold War. If we're trading with Sudanese compainies, if we're buying their longstaple cotton and sesame and sorghum, then we will be in a position to do more good than by pretend saber-ratling. One of the central beliefs of anyone who sees the War on Terror as one of ideas- as a conflict of visions of the way the world should be run between a liberal, tolerant society and a dark, barbaric society- is that the West must offer an alternative that is more appealing than fascism/barbarism/Islamism. How do you propose we do that from the side lines?

You can be as indignant as you like, Mary, but its not going to help anyone in the Sudan. The victims you so genuinely express compassion for need real, practical and feasible solutions. Bombing Khartoum a-la-Belgrade 1999 is preposterous, wreckless, and will do absolutely nothing. Ditto for more than a token force in Darfur.

The focus needs to be in the South- building political institutions that can stand up to the government in Khartoum, cultivating a quasi-independent southern economy for a development budget that doesn't depend on Khartoum's generosity (which has historically been lacking), and re-integrating the HUGE population crossing the border and going back home. The future of the Sudan depends on the relationship between Khartoum and Juba, not Khartoum and Darfur.

I'm all about changing the status quo by implementing a meaningful and lasting peace in the South. But you have to understand that no way in hell will that happen by demanding things from Bashir and then getting uppity when you don't get them. He's holding the cards right now, and you have to respect that as a real part of the equation. If you want the situation to improve, you have to sack up and deal with him.

Posted by: Chris at August 22, 2005 08:25 PM

The root causes of the violence in Darfur are predominantly related to natural resources like rain water and grass.

Yeah right, and the root cause of the violence in the Gaza strip is olive groves. Islamists are slaughtering Buddhist monks in Thailand, women in Pakistan, Hindus in India, Americans and Iraqis in Iraq and black farmers in the Sudan. Are shortages of rain water and grass to blame for all of this?

No, the Arab/Islamist campaign of ethnic cleansing, financed by oil money, is responsible for all of it. Yes, Islamists target moderate Muslims in the Sudan. The Islamists consider themselves to be Arab Muslims. They think the moderates are insufficiently Islamic, and black, and therefore, according to their Shariah laws, legitimate targets.

Supporters of the Arab/Islamist campaign of ethnic cleansing/genocide also include the Syrians and Hezbollah. They are opposed by moderate Lebanese muslims and Christians. It would be an oversimplification to say that this was a war of Muslims vs. Christians, but it would also be absurd to suggest that they're fighting over natural resources.

If we're trading with Sudanese compainies, if we're buying their longstaple cotton and sesame and sorghum, then we will be in a position to do more good than by pretend saber-ratling.

Our alliance with Saudi Arabia, the billions we have given them and their subsequent sponsorship of the 9/11 attacks and suicide bombers in Iraq is proof that trade alone does not "do good"

that he was able to finance that war for the entirety of his tenure is even more evidence of the fact that Totten's belief that the Sudanese army is a trivial entity is bogus and the product of lazy research

The Iraqi army was challenged by the Iranian army during the Iran/Iraq war, but we destroyed the Iraqi army without breaking a sweat. All Arab/Islamist armies are pathetically weak. Here's one analysis of Why Arab Armies Lose Wars.Catch up on your research.

If you had done your research you would also know that there are worse things than war - like genocidal dictators who slaughter thousands in the name of "peace". Any Sudanese can tell you that.

One of the central beliefs of anyone who sees the War on Terror as one of ideas- as a conflict of visions of the way the world should be run between a liberal, tolerant society and a dark, barbaric society- is that the West must offer an alternative that is more appealing than fascism/barbarism/Islamism

I don't see the War on Terror as one of ideas. I think we should fight this war the old-fashioned way - find the enemy, kill them and keep killing them until they surrender. The Bush administration doesn't seem to see things this way right now, but if they think they're losing the War on Terror, they may change their strategy.

On the other hand, Soldier's Dad's suggestion is also a good one.

You can be as indignant as you like, Mary, but its not going to help anyone in the Sudan

I'm not indignant, Chris, I just know bullshit when I smell it. I haven't met a single Sudanese who would agree that your suggestions would "help" anyone in the Sudan - anyone but Bashir and his friends.

Can you tell me why you, a liberal academic with such a nice blog, are spending so much time cheerleading a genocidal Islamist dictator?

Posted by: mary at August 22, 2005 09:41 PM

MAry,
You're not being nuanced enough. He isn't cheering in favor of Hussein, he is cheering in favor of anything that will damage Bush. The fact that a major byproduct of that is support for Hussein and the terrorists is just collateral damage.

Posted by: exhelodrvr at August 22, 2005 10:10 PM

check this out:

The Politics of Jesus And The Oxymoron That Is “The Christian Right”.

Posted by: Alva Goldbook at August 22, 2005 10:54 PM

never mind bashing the US, the real problem is the UN. Its fact-finding m ission to Darfur came up with a mealy-mouthed report that tiptoed around the word genocide -- this despite the razing of countless villages and the execution of their male inhabitants.

This cop-out meant the matter could not be referred to the security council for mandatory action. Sanctions would have been a very effective weapon. Instead it was referred to the UN Human Rights Commission, whose members include Sudan and Zimbabwe, those paragons of human rights.

Whatever "Chris" says, what is happening in Darfur is systematic ethnic cleansing by Arabs of Africans, backed and armed by Khartoum. Botn sides are Muslims and this is not related to the north-south civil war.

the fact is that the UN and everyone else swore there would be no more Rwandas. Their words were empty.

Posted by: Dave F at August 23, 2005 02:21 AM

Of course, why challenge my arguments when its easier to just pile on and dismiss them with the back of a hand?

I've never done "cheerleading" for Bashir. I've only advocated policies that I believe would be more effective in the short and long term in remedying the major problems the Sudan faces. I have no sympathy for Bashir- he's a despot with more than his fair share of blood on his hands. If you think I'd cry at his funeral, you'd be mistaken.

Dave F then stupidly writes: "Whatever "Chris" says, what is happening in Darfur is systematic ethnic cleansing by Arabs of Africans, backed and armed by Khartoum."

Dave, if this is true, then why isn't Khartoum going after Africans everywhere in the Sudan? There are 4 million in Khartoum alone. It seems kind of silly for the government to go through all the trouble of cleansing 100,000 or so in a vast region hundreds of miles west of the capital when they had 4 million right in their back yard. Why did he just sign a peace accord with the most popular and unifying figure in the "African" community in the Sudan? And why did he do this outside the Sudan in a neutral, African country? If he was interested in cleansing the land, why didn't he keep pushing the civil war battle lines all the way to the border and rid the Sudan of those pesky Africans?

If you all don't want to take my arguements seriously, I'm going to throw a quote your way. The author of this statement was Eric Reeves- a liberal/leftist academic from Smith College who has considerable expertise on the issue of the Sudan. He should enjoy credibility with you all because he's been to the Sudan on numerous occasions, and never misses an opportunity to use the word "genocide" to describe the situation in Darfur.

"WHY IT STARTED: The insurgency war in the Darfur region of western Sudan began virtually unnoticed in February 2003; it has over the past two years precipitated the first great episode of genocidal destruction in the twenty-first century. The victims are the non-Arab or African tribal groups of Darfur, primarily the Fur, the Massaleit, and the Zaghawa, but also the Tunjur, the Birgid, the Dajo, and others. These people have long been politically and economically marginalized, and in recent years the National Islamic Front regime in Khartoum has refused to control increasingly violent Arab militia raiding of African villages in Darfur. Competition between Arab and African tribal groups over the scarce primary resources in Darfur--arable land and water--has been exacerbated by advancing desertification throughout the Sahel region. But it was Khartoum's failure to respond to the desperate economic needs of this huge region (it is the size of France), the decayed judiciary, the lack of political representation, and in particular the growing impunity on the part of Arab raiders that finally precipitated full-scale armed conflict."

Prof Reeves' analysis is similar to what I have found in my research: the conflict is the product of natural environmental changes, historic economic and political marginalization, and the competition for a finite amount of resources. What this conflict is not is a racist attack against black Africans by Arab supremacists.

The solutions I argued for yesterday- revitalization of the regional economies through infusions of aid, the creation of political institutions capable of meeting the needs of the Sudanese people- address these problems.

Posted by: Chris at August 23, 2005 06:15 AM

Chris - you say:

Dave F then stupidly writes: "Whatever "Chris" says, what is happening in Darfur is systematic ethnic cleansing by Arabs of Africans, backed and armed by Khartoum."

The anti-slavery, anti-genocide Sudanese also say that what is happening in Darfur is systematic ethnic cleansing by Arabs of black Africans. Are you saying that these Sudanese are stupid, that they don't know what is going on in their own country?

You also appear to be saying that you and Professor Reeves do know what is going on in the Sudan, and that the best course of action is to give a homicidal dicatator lots of money.

In contrast, anti-slavery Sudanese and the anti-slavery group recommend the opposite course of action - divestment.

Thanks for the advice, but I'll listen to the anti-slavery groups from now on. When it comes to issues of slavery and genocide, you're either for it or against it.

Posted by: mary at August 23, 2005 10:15 AM

Mary-

I really hope you're not trying to imply I'm pro-genocide or pro-slavery, because that would be ridiculous.

As for divestment as a policy option, I've hashed this issue out before with a number of people who are experts both in the field of international economic sanctions, as well as those in the know about the Sudan. I would agree that it is preferable to the deployment of military forces as an option, but also unlikely to work. For sanctions to be truly successful, they have to be universal. China is not going to participate in any sanctions regime because it needs the Sudanese oil it is buying to finance the rapid expansion and industrialization of its economy. The point Reeves makes in the essay on the site you linked to is that Americans (usually unknowingly) participate in China's investment in the Sudan- and by extension subsidize Bashir's government- through mutual fund or pension holdings. If Americans were to take his advice and sell their shares, they might be able to sleep well at night but they would be giving China an opportunity to re-up its stake in the Sudan and give the US even less control over the situation. Sanctions won't work when there are countries willing to violate them.

Look... its a bad situation and I'm trying to make the best of it. Dealing with that government is not a morally satisfying or comfortable thing to do, but sometimes you have to. Totten's essay was in part about Serb aggression in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995. If you read Ivo Daalder's absolutely brilliant history of that war, as well as Gary Bass' history of the criminal tribunals that followed, you see the way US officials as senior as Richard Holbrooke were negotiating with people like Mladic even after Srebrenica. We negotiated a peace with Milosevic at Dayton rather than arrest and charge him in 1995. For the sake of the people on the ground, some times you have to deal with bad people.

On the other hand, the proposals you are making, while morally comforting and satisfying, are full of hubris and ignorant of the facts. Please, go ahead and look at what kind of a stake the US actually has in terms of foreign direct investment in the Sudan. How much do you think pulling that paltry sum out would actually do (especially when there are investors from China, Russia and Malaysia waiting in the wings to replace our dollars as soon as we take them away)? It would do next to nothing... we stopped investing seriously in that country after the end of the Cold War and Turabi's ascendency in the early 1990's, and we haven't gone back in any meaningful way. Divestment would have a minimal impact, if any.

Posted by: Chris at August 23, 2005 10:58 AM

"You want to blame someone? Blame the governments of the permanent members of the SC."

I do. Specifically France, China and Russia. But that doesn't make it better.

"Instead of the UN as it currently exists, you want an alternative institution that has the power and the authority (and the moral vision) to intervene in soverign countries to solve problems, without having to bother with the niceties of international diplomacy."

There are other options. You don't have to skip straight to the super-statist one and presume that is the only thing available.

As mentioned above, the UN is institutionally about stasis--it makes change organizationally very difficult.

That doesn't mean countries can't act individually or in groups outside of the UN (they do so all the time).

However, when sometimes there is a big issue (often involving obvious moral problems) that lots of countries would prefer to pretend does not exist. In such cases it is easy to use the UN, which is institutionally likely not to be interested in change, as an excuse not to take action.

As such the existance of the UN acts to make things worse by providing an excuse for individual nations not to act.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at August 23, 2005 11:49 AM

Chris, you don't seem to take the material you quote as seriously as you think.

"...and in particular the growing impunity on the part of Arab raiders that finally precipitated full-scale armed conflict."

Arab raiders are not chiefly an economic phenomenon. They are a social phenomenon.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at August 23, 2005 11:53 AM

Sebastian- Any idea why the "Arab-raiders" were raiding in the first place? Not because of any social phenomenon... because they were competing for resources they lost when the northern economy went by the way-side and the Sahara kept on marching south. If you don't want to buy that, then please explain why the "Arab-raiders" traveled all the way to Darfur when they just needed to go through the neighborhoods of South Khartoum. If all they're out for are scalps and war stories, that would have a been a lot easier... they'd have even been able to make it home in time for dinner.

Posted by: Chris at August 23, 2005 12:10 PM

Chris,

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but you seem incredibly bent on proving that this isn't really an act of "genocide". Perhaps it isn't in the literal "extermination of a people due to their race" sense, and more because of a battle of resources as you put it. So this would make it less "awful"?

I know you're not condoning the acts of the Sudanese government, but there is a tone (or at least I pick one up) in your posts that seems to say "well, they're not killing these people because of their race or ideology, they just happen to sit ontop of important resources". If that's what you're really trying to convey, then please enlighten me as to why it should make a fucking difference if something constitutes as "genocide" or not. Either way, it looks like hundreds of thousands have been killed and many more displaced, and regardless of motive, that IS a BAD thing deserving of action, is it not?

I guess my point is, even if you're correct (and I'll assume you are) that this is all winding down (which it appears to), I don't understand the notion of "well, if we really wanted to stop it we've missed most of the carnage and its a tricky situation anyway, so let's not get ourselves too involved".

If I really botched your interpretation of this, feel free to flame me, but that's my honest take on your words.

Posted by: snipe at August 23, 2005 12:18 PM

Chris: For the sake of the people on the ground, some times you have to deal with bad people.

I strongly recommend the book "Love They Neighbor" by Peter Maass. It's about Bosnia. See, especially, the chapter called "The Appeasers."

Here is an excerpt from that chapter. He's writing here about Germany, but at the same time he's writing about Yugoslavia and the "negotiations" with Slobodan Milosovic.

-------------------

Appeasement is much harder to accomplish than it seems. It is not just a matter of saying to the stronger side, There you go, have what you want, it’s all yours, just sign on the dotted line. The appeaser much accomplish two crucial tasks.

First, the appeaser must, to the greatest extent possible, disguise the fact that he is appeasing. He must portray himself as a peacemaker, as a man who has prevented or ended a war on decent terms. That is why, for example, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, returning from Munich after handing a chunk of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, said in an address from Downing Street on the evening of September 30, 1938, that he had achieved “peace with honor,” and that, as a thankful result, everyone should “go home and get a nice quiet sleep.” He had not appeased; he had kept the peace. Now go to sleep, go to sleep…

Second, the appeaser much persuade the victim to cooperate. Chamberlain was fortunate in this case, because Edvard Benes, the president of Czechoslovakia, had no visible alternative to surrendering the Sudetenland.; his small country could not resist a German blitzkrieg, especially if Britain was on Germany’s side. As a result, Chamberlain was able to present the carve-up of Czechoslovakia as a sort of diplomatic euthanasia that the victim agreed to. He was lucky. If the victim resists, the appeaser is in a bind, because euthanasia turns into murder, and, instead of being a benevolent guide, soothing the victim as it is put to sleep, the appeaser must hold down the screaming victim as the terminal injection is administered. It is a very nasty business.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 23, 2005 12:50 PM

Snipe- You only sort of misunderstood me, but its probably as much my own fault as yours. On some level, yes, it is an issue of semantics. But the reason I am so adament about defining the conflict in correct terms is because the key to solving it is understanding it. If the nature of the conflict WAS primordial (or if I believed it to be, anyway), I would advocate a different and much more aggressive posture. But Bashir, as scummy as he may be, is a rational actor who has always put himself and the survival of his regime ahead of everything else- especially Islam. That is a matter of historical fact and I leave it to those who disagree with me to refute it. I believe the shortest, most comprehensive, and least bloody way through this problem (I mean least bloody for the Sudanese) is by dealing with him in a firm, yet diplomatic way. Carrots and sticks... that kind of thing. So, I would say it does make a difference what motivates the crime. If it is the kind of irrational hatred and paranoia that drove Hitler, then I wouldn't advocate constructive engagment. But if the motivations are primarily about serving political and economic interests, that has to be recognized. Definitions and the proper rhetoric are critical to a correct understanding of the conflict, and a correct understanding of the conflict is essential to establishing the framework for a workable, and equitable, peace.

That brings me, Michael, to your point, by way of Maass, which is a good one. When dealing with irrational people possessed by irrational fantasies of supremacy, negotiating is not possible. There are more than enough lessons from the 20th century to prove that point, Hitler among them. But the analogy you try and make by citing Chamberlain, or another comparison that could have been made to General Peitan, doesn't hold up- in my view anyway. And again, the reason for this boils down to the nature of the conflicts. Hitler's ideology was irrational, and so were his actions. Things he believed didn't make any sense, and many things he did- not just the Final Solution- didn't either. Why did he declare Budapest a fortress in December 1945 and sacrafice forces that could have been better used repellng the 394th and 99th Division's counter-offensive at the Elsborne Ridge? Bashir, on the other hand, is a pragmatist with no ideology. He can be reasoned with, dealt with, and influenced. That is not my position- it is a matter of historical record evidenced by the deals he's cut, the decisions he's made, the policies he's pursued and the extent to which he's pursued them. When we speak of Bashir, we're not speaking of a Hitler or a Qutb or a Pol Pot or someone else to possessed by ideas and fantasies to be talked off a ledge. This is the critical distinction in understanding the conflicts in the Sudan, the dynamics of those conflicts, the forces at work... all of which must be understood before beginning to create a theoretical framework for a solution. Once it becomes clear- and upon inspection, it does become clear- that the forces motivating Kharoum's policies towards the uprisings in Darfur, the Beja rebels in the Eastern Sudan, and the SPLA/SANU/SLM/SLA/SPLM groups in the south are fundamentally rational ones- that needs to be considered and accepted when approaching the situation.

One thing to note is that everyone who has written about this on this message board- myself included- care deeply about the problem in the Sudan and want to see a solution reached. The reason I am so stubborn about the definitions is because I don't think a workable solution can be achieved without a precise understanding of a deeply complex issue.

Posted by: Chris at August 23, 2005 02:07 PM

December 1944, I meant to say. Forgive me.

Posted by: Chris at August 23, 2005 02:11 PM

What on earth are you trying to say Michael?

Is dealing with bad people automatically equate to appeasement? Are you critical of the negotiations with Milosevic in Dayton? Are you advocating bombing all the bad people in the world, perhaps all at once - lest we be appeasers?

Are we currently activly engaged in appeasement in N Korea, Iran? Are you doing a Bush=Chamberlain? Do we have long term appeasement strategies with every other bad regime in the world? What are you driving at?

Posted by: Observer at August 23, 2005 02:17 PM

Observer: Is dealing with bad people automatically equate to appeasement?

Not necessarily, but sometimes.

Are you critical of the negotiations with Milosevic in Dayton?

Yes. Read Peter's book.

Are you advocating bombing all the bad people in the world, perhaps all at once - lest we be appeasers?

No.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 23, 2005 02:22 PM

"If you don't want to buy that, then please explain why the "Arab-raiders" traveled all the way to Darfur when they just needed to go through the neighborhoods of South Khartoum. If all they're out for are scalps and war stories, that would have a been a lot easier... they'd have even been able to make it home in time for dinner."

Who said all they are out for are scalps and war stories? Quite possible to be out for scalps, war stories, and economic gain now isn't it? Just because they think they can make economic gain from engaging in ethnic cleansing doesn't make their actions in targeting the villages of certain ethnicities and not others less of an ethnic cleansing.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at August 23, 2005 02:31 PM

For the ethnic content, see the UN InterAgency Report of April 25, 2004:

"The 23 Fur villages in the Shattaya Administrative Unit have been completely depopulated, looted and burnt to the ground (the team observed several such sites driving through the area for two days). Meanwhile, dotted alongside these charred locations are unharmed, populated and functioning Arab settlements. In some locations, the distance between a destroyed Fur village and an Arab village is less than 500 meters."

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at August 23, 2005 02:34 PM

My question for Chris -- who, BTW, has educated me about Sudan far more than I could have expected when I woke up today -- is this: At what point (i.e., after the implementation of what policies) do the rationality and pragmatism of the political actor cease to matter? First, on a factual level I'd like him to tell us to what degree Bashir is responsible for what's happening in Darfur (or, perhaps, to what degree he is able or unable to actually STOP what's happening there). If he bears great responsibility for a genocidal or near-genocidal level of killing, my gut response is that I don't care how rational he is, and that, furthermore, his rationality shouldn't be an issue for other nations, NGOs or the UN, either.

Posted by: Gene at August 23, 2005 02:49 PM

Sebastian- Nothing about that UN report differs from my take. The settlements that were left untouched are the settlements being created by the Arab pastoralists who have migrated into Darfur for the myriad reasons I've mentioned above- desertification, water, grazing land, etc. The government, clearly, has a dog in this fight: the Arab pastoralists, who have always been a critical part of Bashir's political base. There presence, indeed, is one of the main reasons for the outbreak of violence. I'm not going to deny- nor would I want to- the history of inequity and economic injustice in the Sudan, nor would I deny the role that race has played in the Sudan's history of economic injustice and inequity. The Sudan's name, which comes from 8th century Arab cartographers, is originally "bilad al-sudan," which roughly translates to "land of the blacks." For centuries, the Fatimid Dynasty exploited the human resources of the African tribes indigenous to the Sudan. As did the Ottoman Empire, and the Mahdist State, and so forth. But my point is that the reason for the incursions into Darfur is not because there are black people there- rather the reasons are economic, etc. What is going on in Darfur, and make no mistake about me believing this, is an opportunistic land grab: Bashir is using the context of the rebel uprising as an excuse for siezing land for a consituent group important to his political health. Regarding the UN report you cite, an apt analogy to the Arab settlements left unscathed would be the demolition of Palestinian homes in the West Bank while Israeli settlements nearby, on occupied land, are left untouched.

Gene- Bashir is responsible for the violence in Darfur, or at the very least he is capable of stopping 100% (which in my book makes him responsible). But there is an abundance of evidence linking the infamous janjaweed to his government, and indeed there have even been direct Sudanese military incursions into the region. In some instances, the Sudanese air force has flown over and hit targets in the region as a coordinated part of the campaign to occupy the land in Darfur.

I'm not exactly what you mean by his rationality not being an issue, though. I defined his rationality as an issue only in the sense that it should shape our response to the crisis. Is he an SOB? Oh yeah. But if he can be talked off the ledge with carrots and sticks in a way that helps improve the lives of Darfurians without risking the fragile Naivasha Protocol (the prospects of implenting said agreement became even more precarious with the death of Garang some weeks ago), then I think you need to at least make a good faith effort at that for some amount of time. The alternatives- of disengaging from the Sudan's economy or initiating some sort of military response- either allow China to increase its influence over Khartoum (which only lessens the chance for real political reform and a solution to the humanitarian strife in Darfur and the Nuba Mountains) or shred up Naivasha and bring the tremendously bloody civil war (currently at a cease fire with a chance for a lasting peace) back to where it was in 1991 when the SPLA was fragmented and Bashir was in the driver's seat with no incentive for easing his foot off the gas.

All of that is moot if you think Bashir is an irrational actor, though. If that is what I thought, I'd also think that Bashir's position in power made a Sudanese holocaust inevitable. But he's been in charge for over 15 years, and all he's done is acted rationally. He's ruthless and brutal, and deserving of a spot in line at the ICC or worse, but not irrational.

I guess, in answer to your question, I think if the West made a concerted effort to deal with Bashir in the sense of saying to him, "We are willing to open up our markets to you, and we are willing to help rebuild the industry that Nimairi's (1968-1985) idiocy destroyed with conditional grants and aid money, and we are willing to help secure IMF funding, etc... but we need serious accountability on the following issues: 1) Naivasha must be implemented to the letter. Any deviations and we'll cut you off and arm the SPLM the way Idi Amin did when they were at their strongest point. 2) The next budget that comes out of Khartoum must be equitable in terms of development aid for the regions in the West and south of Bentiu. 3) Withdraw from Darfur" I think you would get some real progress, which you definitely would not get through divestment or invasion. Number 3 could also be coupled with a pledge to help soften the conditions that caused the Arab pastoralists to go into Darfur in the first place.

Posted by: Gene at August 23, 2005 03:42 PM

Whoops. Sorry for putting Gene's name on the bottom of that one. It was mine.

Posted by: Chris at August 23, 2005 03:43 PM

Hitler's ideology was irrational, and so were his actions. Things he believed didn't make any sense, and many things he did- not just the Final Solution- didn't either. Why did he declare Budapest a fortress in December 1945 and sacrafice forces that could have been better used repellng the 394th and 99th Division's counter-offensive at the Elsborne Ridge? Bashir, on the other hand, is a pragmatist with no ideology.

Say what you want about the tenets of National socialism, at least it was an ethos...

[sorry, I couldn't resist]

It's very apt for you to compare Bashir to another genocidal leader, Hitler. In fact, Hitler was not irrational, and neither were the Germans who followed him. Germans are famous for their pragmatism. Hitler sold the German people the socialist aspects of national socialism, cradle-to-grave security, and the Germans were happy to buy it.

According to German historian Goetz Aly

Hitler not only fattened his adoring "Volk" with jobs and low taxes, he also fed his war machine through robbery and murder, says a German historian in a stunning new book. Far from considering Nazism oppressive, most Germans thought of it as warm-hearted

Financing such home front "happiness" was not simple and Hitler essentially achieved it by robbing and murdering others..Jews. Slave laborers. Conquered lands. All offered tremendous opportunities for plunder, and the Nazis exploited it fully..

Once the robberies had begun, a sort of "snowball effect" ensued and in order to stay afloat, he says Germany had to conquer and pilfer from more territory and victims. "That's why Hitler couldn't stop and glory comfortably in his role as victor after France's 1940 surrender." Peace would have meant the end of his predatory practices and would have spelled "certain bankruptcy for the Reich."

Bashir appears to be a lot less warm-hearted than Hitler, which is saying a lot. He also doesn't have Hitler's military strength. On a purely pragmatic level, this comparison certainly doesn't justify a policy of bribery and appeasement.

Posted by: mary at August 23, 2005 03:48 PM

Chris, I think what I'm getting at is: At what point do the actions of a rational actor become, for the purposes of our calculations about what to DO about the situation, essentially the same as the actions of an irrational one? Some people (e.g., me) would call ethnic cleansing and murder to the tune of 100K people--or more, whatever the latest number is--crazy, no matter how "sane" you think the perpetrator is. (I hope that you would be able to state your own threshold for when that point is reached?) And in that case, we would have a moral obligation to respond just as we would to a crazy person.

Posted by: Gene at August 23, 2005 04:41 PM

Gene- I get what you're saying, and I guess I'm really not sure how I would answer that. The only reason I brought up the idea of Bashir as a rational actor was for the purposes of explaining why it was preferable to at least try and work out a diplomatic solution before resorting to last case scenarios. I also wanted to point out that while the Naivasha Peace process is largely unrelated to Darfur, it could be held hostage to it if Western policy became to cavalier. Things are bad in the Sudan, but they could be made worse overnight, and Bashir is the one with the power to make that happen. I think it was on 60 Minutes the other night that the CIA guy who wrote the book critical of Bush's handling of the War on Terror under the pseudonym "Anonymous" said something like "until we learn to respect bin Laden, people will die in large and unecessary numbers." He wasn't arguing we should appease or that we should let up trying to kill the guy and oppose everything he stands for... he was saying we need to understand he's a worthy adversary and treat him like one. We need to understand that Bashir is in a more powerful position then we may like to think he is vis a vis any Western policy towards the Sudan. And we need to act like we understand that... which would mean taking the country seriously enough to at least understand the dynamics involved in the separate conflicts, how they relate and how they don't relate.

A more direct response to your question about when the proverbial rubicon is crossed, and at what point we should abandon pragmatism for the sake of something greater... I guess I would have to be a bit Rumsfeldian: I would say abandon pragmatism when it is no longer pragmatic. When and if the situation in Darfur becomes so dire that it threatens to leave scars deeper than the 22 year civil war, and threatens to hinder political progress in the Sudan more than undermining the Naivasha protocols, or when it threatens more lives- then I would say we would have reached critical mass, and that we should perhaps reorient policy away from Naivasha and towards Darfur.

Posted by: Chris at August 23, 2005 05:06 PM

Let me add one more thing, though, before I call it a day, that helps put the scale of the Civil War into some kind of context. Since everyone is focused on Darfur and the scale of that atrocity, consider, for a moment, that in terms of the combined number of deaths, casualties and refugess, the Sudanese Civil war has claimed more victims than violence in Angola, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Liberia, the Persian Gulf, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Rwanda combined. COMBINED.

I think its wonderful that there are people who are concerned about Darfur, but I was not kidding around, and have not been kidding around, when I've stated in the past that the Sudan has bigger fish to fry than the war in Darfur. The Civil War is a big deal, and people need understand that its a much bigger deal than Darfur.

My source for that staggering statistic is Randolph Martin's essay in the March/April 2002 Foreign Affairs called "Sudan's Perfect War."

Posted by: Chris at August 23, 2005 05:17 PM

I think it was on 60 Minutes the other night that the CIA guy who wrote the book critical of Bush's handling of the War on Terror under the pseudonym "Anonymous" said something like "until we learn to respect bin Laden, people will die in large and unecessary numbers."

Oh, please. Again, who do you think you're fooling?

You're talking about Michael Scheuer, who wrote the book Imperial Hubris. Scheuer is a paleoconservative and an anti-Zionist who blames all the world's problems on Israel. He's a member of the great "moronic convergence" of the anti-defense Left and the Isolationist right. From Andrew Apostolou's TCS article, Michael Scheuer's Bloody Logic:

[Scheuer] is an old-fashioned Republican who scorns promoting democracy overseas. Speaking at the CFR, Scheuer called President Bush's State of the Union address "warmed-up Wilsonianism", which is not a compliment as he described Woodrow Wilson in Imperial Hubris as a "bloody-handed fantasist." Responding to a questioner at the same event who asked if killing terrorist enemies would not simply create more enemies, Scheuer replied that "My books are pretty nationalist, ma'am. I don't much care." Indeed, Scheuer is so "nationalist" that he has recently written for LewRockwell.com, a neoconfederate, isolationist website that vilifies President Abraham Lincoln.

So far, so far to the right of Pat Buchanan, but Scheuer is more than a new eruption of a mildly irritating cyst on the extremity of the American body politic. The truly dangerous and inflammatory aspect of Scheuer is that, in essence, he blames the mayhem and bloodshed caused by Islamist terrorism not on bin Laden and al Qaeda, but on those who built the Holocaust Museum...

...Better still, by placating extremists like bin Laden, an alteration in policy would conveniently free the CIA, in which Scheuer served for over 20 years, from the tedious requirement of having to find and fight terrorists. With such a view of the world, it is no wonder that Scheuer never caught bin Laden.

On a less pragmatic note, Chris, I notice that you haven't addressed the issue of the Sudanese who disagree with the policy of bribery and appeasement. Is that because you know that you can't convince the potential victims of your proposed policy of bribery and appeasement to cooperate? From MJT's quote:

If the victim resists, the appeaser is in a bind, because euthanasia turns into murder, and, instead of being a benevolent guide, soothing the victim as it is put to sleep, the appeaser must hold down the screaming victim as the terminal injection is administered. It is a very nasty business.

It is a nasty business, isn't it?

Posted by: mary at August 23, 2005 05:56 PM

I tell you what, Mary... I'll have a conversation with the 1,000,000 or so who have been refugees from Darfur for about 2 years about why I think, in the grand scheme of things, its better to focus on Naivasha and the Civil War peace process when you have a conversation with te 4,000,000 refugees who want to return to the homes they've been exiled from for 20 years about why ending a conflict that has no prospect for improving the political process or doing anything to address the countries substantial political, economic and social deficiencies is important enough to dash any hopes they ever had for returning to the land they left decades ago- land, by the way, which has more tribal and cultural significance to its natives than does Darfur to its natives.

When you have that conversation with the exile communities in Uganda, Kenya, Angola and Ethiopia, I'll have that conversation with the ones in Chad. Oh wait... the ones in Chad have already moved into the Chadian cities and established new lives for themselves... many have obtained visas and left for Europe and the United States. Do you realize that, even if Bashir pulled out of Darfur and promised- cross his heart and hope to die- that he would never bother anyone in Darfur ever again, most experts only believe about 10-20% of the refugees would return? The Civil War peace process is affecting 20X the number of lives- just in terms of refugees. Why don't you want to focus on that Mary? Why do you only want to help the trendy causes? Did the Civil War go out of style with Pogs and snap bracelets? Is that the problem?

I implore you- before you open your mouth or make another argument about Darfur... look at the BIGGER picture. In the last 20 years, there have been three wars in the Sudan ALONE bigger than Darfur. Darfur, for all its horror, has no long-term upside for the social, economic and political problems that, over the last century and a half, made the Sudan the trouble spot it is today. It is a conflict that dates to a time more recent than the last New York Yankees World Series victory. The peace process for the Civil War is the end all and be all... if it doesn't get anywhere, then you can kiss any chance of peace in Darfur goodbye. If it does get somewhere, then you can hope. You have to do one before the other. Darfur- sad as it may be- needs to wait in line.

Posted by: Chris at August 23, 2005 06:18 PM

You're saying that you agree with the Arab League's position on Darfur, and you disagree with the Sudanese blacks, Christians and slaves.

And you claim that this is in the interests of peace.

So, can you tell me why you're not an Arabist like Juan Cole? I'm sure that he, like the Arab League, could offer the same reasoning.

Posted by: mary at August 23, 2005 06:37 PM

..and by the way, the proper name for the Civil War you're threatening us with is jihad. You can't fight jihad with appeasement.

One finds slavery and quasi-slavery practices around the world, yet what makes slavery unique in Sudan is that there has beenwas a revival of the practice in the mid-1980s. The institution was virtually extinct in the 1970s and slave raids were unknown, except in a few remote places. The revival began in 1983, when then-president Ja'far Numayri placed himself at the vanguard of the Islamic revolution in Africa. Casting aside his socialist baggage, he became the great imam and arbitrarily imposed Shari'a law on the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious Sudanese society. In the process, Numayri abolished the autonomy of southern Sudan that had producedending over ten years of peace in the country and imposed a policy of radical Islamization and Arabization.

These policies generated small-scale armed resistance among southern Sudanese, including black Africans, Christians and other groups who adhered to their traditional religious beliefs. The government in Khartoum then began to use slave raids and slavery as an instrument of counter-insurgency to break the resistance against its policies.

In 1983, the Numayri government began arming Arab militiamen, sent them southwards, and allowed them to keep whatever booty they could seize, including women and children as slaves. As we know from testimonies of former slaves, Arab raiders even today burn the villages they overpower and usually shoot the men. Forming old-fashioned slave caravans, the remaining women and children are tied to a long rope and dragged by horses. Those unable to keep up are beaten, often to death, while crying children or babies are thrown into the bush to die.

Once enslaved, the women and children are forced to adopt Islamic religious practices (most slaves are Christians or animists) and must take different names and speak Arabic, thus changing their cultural identities to Arabic. They are often, and are subjected to beatings and sexual abuse, including female genital mutilation.

Slavery in the Sudan today takes place in the context of declared jihad..

Posted by: mary at August 23, 2005 06:54 PM

This sudden interest in Sudan really confounds me the genocide in the Southern Region in the past upon Christian and Pagans resulted in almost 10 times the deaths of the Sufi Muslims in Dafur.

Before I discovered blogs I was ranting on that oh 2 to 3 years ago,

This is only PART of the worldwide Jihad.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 23, 2005 07:08 PM

I really need to go to bed after this.

Mary- Nimairi did call the war in the south a Jihad, repeatedly. Bashir has said the same thing. Both of them were using rhetoric to placate political bases when they said/say things like that, and both ruled/rule like secular despots. I've written about this before, actually, in this specific context. Its on page 21 of my paper on the history political violence in the Sudan, to be precise. Here is what I wrote: "It took a few years for many in the South to realize the futility of the Addis Ababa agreement, partly becaue many Northern Islamists were so opposed to it. For them, the ultimate goal was an Arab/Islamic Sudan, and the new Southern regional government, however weak, was seen as an obstacle. TO ASSUAGE THESE GROUPS, Nimairi began a broad policy of theocratization that gradually evolved into a policy of Islamization. When Nimairi began the policy in 1972, he said 'The Ministry is undertaking the task of restoring to the mosque its position and ineffectiveness as center for intellectual and religious influence and a focus for guidance and instruction to infuse tranquility into souls and to transform them into creative and constructive [cutuzens]... The Ministry is concerned with patronizing developing churches and takes an interest in Christian institutions, education, clergymen, and in establishing a Sudanese Church.' However, his tolerant rhetoric had given way to unabashed pro-Islamic policy, including the infamous Septmeber Laws of 1983 that, in imposing Sharia on the Southern Sudan, helped spark the outbreak of the second civil war."

The source of that quote within the quote is page 91 of a book called "African Political Rhetoric: An Analysis of Persuasive Strategies in the Discourse of President Jaafar Nimeiry of the Sudan." The author, according to my notes (which must be incomplete), is Hamid, and the publisher is Uiversity Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, 1983.

If you track Nimair's tenure in office from 1969-1985, you'll see a gradual shift from anti-Islamic violence to pro-Islamic coddling that, not coincedentally, corresponds with the increasing failure of his economic schemes... particularly cotton. Track the economic records from that era and you'll see how dramatically the exports fell and the the currency tanked. The short answer, and the correct one, is that Nimairi was cloaking himself in Islam to distract attention from his own failings as a leader. If you want to know what Nimairi really thinks of Islam and Islamists, all you have to do is google "Aba Island and Nimairi." It was quite the massacre. Remember... Nimairi siezed power 48 hours after Sadiq al-Mahdi, Hassan al-Turabi and the constitutio committee drafted an Islamic constitution on 23 May 1969. He immediately shredded the document and announced he wanted to broker a peace deal with Lagu and the Southern rebels. The Islamists tried to assasinate him... he, in turn, massacred them on Aba Island and then went one step further and assasinated the Sudan's most powerful Imam Hadi al-Mahdi, a direct decendent of the legendary al-Mahdi who cast off the shackles of Egyptian imperialism in the 19th century Mahdist Revolution.

All of this stuff, believe it or not, actually happened. Do you really think an "Islamist" leader who believed the Civil War in the South was a spiritual duty would actually SUE FOR PEACE, as Nimairi did in 1972 when he agreed to meet Lagu, leader of the SSLM, in Addis Ababa? Pu-lease.

If you want to know about the Nimairi years (sometimes known as the inter-war years (for those who don't know, there was another civil war between 1956 and 1969)), I recommend Catherine Jendia's book "The Sudanese Civil Conflict" and sections of Doug Johnson's "The Root Causes of Sudan's Civil Wars."

Posted by: Chris at August 23, 2005 08:31 PM

Do you really think an "Islamist" leader who believed the Civil War in the South was a spiritual duty would actually SUE FOR PEACE, as Nimairi did in 1972 when he agreed to meet Lagu, leader of the SSLM, in Addis Ababa?

Despite political wheeling and dealing, this..

Once enslaved, the women and children are forced to adopt Islamic religious practices (most slaves are Christians or animists) and must take different names and speak Arabic, thus changing their cultural identities to Arabic. They are often, and are subjected to beatings and sexual abuse, including female genital mutilation.

..is still going on. It will continue to go on until we stop it.

Dan is right - it's jihad and it has been jihad for many years, in the Sudan, in India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, Egypt, the United States, Europe and Britain. We've been appeasing it for years, and if we continue to appease it, jihad will continue to grow. It really is that simple.

Posted by: mary at August 23, 2005 08:48 PM

We have not defined the exact goals; we don't have any real idea of the likely results; we don't have any concrete comprehension of the expected duration or the COSTS

Sounds like Iraq to me, so why not just go for it?

Posted by: novakant at August 24, 2005 06:01 AM

Mary-

I don't have the time or energy to go any further with this. I hope, though, that you'll take off your ideological blinders and really try to understand the nature of the conflicts in the Sudan if you are going to continue talking about them.

For the record, I believe the insurgents in Darfur were morally justified in revolting in 2003. They overplayed their hand and got crushed by the government, but they're on the right side of history. Likewise with the rebels in the South, who have fought a noble fight against all odds is now in its sixth decade. Ultimately, I hope they get what they have always (for the most part) wanted: secularism, regional autonomy and a fair cut of the resource wealth.

But being on the right side of history is not an excuse for manipulating the truth, or for peddling ignorance without a basis of factual support. Your willingness to ignore historical evidence that challenges the preconceived notion you entered this debate with is as dishonest as it is disconcerting. I am thankful you will never get a chance to implement your "solutions" to the problems plaguing the Sudan, because the results would be the most mind bogglingly catostrophic episode in the tragic history of the African continent.

I'm sorry that not every situation in the world involving people who happen to be Muslim fits neatly into your beliefs about the nature of Islamic/Islamist political violence, but the real world is what it is. If you ever get out there, take a look around. You might learn something.

Posted by: Chris at August 24, 2005 07:01 AM

Chris - I'm sorry that not every situation in the world involving people who happen to be Muslim fits neatly into your beliefs about the nature of Islamic/Islamist political violence, but the real world is what it is.

Many of the people who happen to be Muslim are also black, and are slaughtered and enslaved by Bashir's government. That fits into my beliefs about Islamists, and I wish that situation would change.

In any case, thanks for taking the time to respond to many questions.

Just one last question - if Bashir's opponents are on the "right side of history", what side are Bashir's supporters and appeasers on?

Posted by: mary at August 24, 2005 08:11 AM