 |
Evening Open Thread: Military Action, Political Action |
 |
Mark Helprin in the New York Times is advocating intense military action against Sudan:
Although Darfur is part of Sudan, it is physically distant from the country’s heartland and sources of military power. Every inch of the 600 miles of barren territory between Khartoum and the killing grounds is an opportunity for a reprieve commanded by American air power  with not a boot on the ground. The Sudanese military in Darfur can be trapped there without sustenance, to wither or retreat as the bulk of Sudanese forces are kept out. And the janjaweed can be denied tangible support merely by severing the few extenuated routes of supply.
The issue, of course, is one of legitimacy. We could stop the genocide in Darfur, but China - who’s invested heavily in the country - might not like it. And if we embark on another coalition of the willing campaign, where does it end? I doubt the genocide in Darfur really has a military solution. It seems like this has to be international action or nothing, unfortunately.
Speaking of military action, the cease-fire in Iraq is over.
On the political front, BlogPac is going to take on Democrats this election year in what they are calling their “Blue to Bluer” campaign:
More recently, progressives have utilized Democratic primaries as a means to successfully change Democratic behavior. So far this year, this strategy has worked in districts such as the Illinois 3rd where Dan Lipinski changed his vote on Iraq because of his primary challenger, the Iowa 3rd where Blue Dog Leonard Boswell has suddenly become a progressive on a range of issues now that Ed Fallon is running against him, and the Maryland 4th where Donna Edwards handily defeated the more conservative Al Wynn. It is in the spirit of all three of these projects that BlogPac is announcing a similar program to reform safe, blue seats at the local and statewide level: From Blue to Bluer.
It’s a smart strategy. It might take a while, but this is where real change can happen.
And speaking of progressives, looks like I won the contest! Rick Noriega is Russ Feingold’s newest Progressive Patriot. (Andrew Rice is a great candidate too, and it looks like everyone got a little money out of the deal as consolation.)
What’s on your mind tonight? This is an open thread.
Mark Helprin in the New York Times is advocating intense military action against Sudan:
Actually, he isn’t. He is for giving the government of Sudan an ultimatum, with a gun pointed at the head of the government. The military aspects Helprin describes are what’s needed to be ready to make this more than just an empty threat. The rest depends on the answer from the Sudanese government, and how stupid or cowardly Omar al-Bashir (Sudan’s leader) is.
It’s the type namby-pamby UN-type approach that has let the Darfur genocide go on so long.
I doubt the genocide in Darfur really has a military solution.
A threat of combat is as valid a military solution as actual combat is, provided the recipient of the threat believes the threat will become real. To not use it is irresponsible and dumb.
I guess I can’t really point to an instance where threats like this have worked. They will call the bluff, like the Serbs did in Kosovo, and then we’ll have to follow through, which as I said, won’t really work even if China would let us do it.
Unilateral action, as a rule, is bad unless we are actively defending ourselves.