Nedezhda pretty much articulates my views (only much better than I could) about intervening in the genocide in Darfur.
Putting a halt to the killing is only the beginning, not the end, of any intervention. Whether a conflict involves genocide or just terrible violence does not change the fact that those who intervene should have a pretty clear idea of what the desirable “end game” will be for neutralizing, if not permanently resolving, the conflict….
Regarding the crisis in Darfur, surely the past two decades of war and fitful attempts at peace in southern Sudan have taught us that the Sudanese political, ethnic and sectarian conflicts are not only remarkably complex, nearly intractable, and remarkably impervious to outside influence but also that the political cultures and institutions in the region are extremely fragile.
I’m certainly open to being persuaded in the case for intervention, but assertions that moral rectitude is the beginning and end of our foreign policy discussions strike me as unhelpful, particularly once we get past the “calling attention to the problem” stage and enter the “what should we do about this?” stage.
No comments have been added to this post yet.