Americans embrace the "Responsibility to Protect" Posted by Sam Bell

Zogby recently found that a majority of likely voters (3 in 5) believe that the U.S. has a responsibility to end genocide in Darfur, Sudan.   Seven in ten support a U.S. no-fly zone to deter Sudanese aerial attacks and “Support is nearly uniform in both the Republican leaning “Red States” and their Democrat-leaning “Blue State” counterparts.”

It seems likely that Congress – on the whole, more educated about the crisis than their constituents – would be more supportive of taking action to end genocide.   It’s puzzling that more Congressional action is not directed towards this goal.  There are other foreign policy issues that occupy the attention of members and have a stranglehold on their wallets.   Sensitivities relating to the war in Iraq – the U.S. acting with force in a Muslim nation – make it much more difficult for the U.S. to take a leading role in ending genocide in Darfur, Sudan.  But, that shouldn’t hold us back.   While U.S. and NATO resources are committed to Iraq and Afghanistan, it would not take much to protect civilians in Darfur.  Surely, the U.S. and NATO could spare a small rapid-response force and the few aerial and intelligence assets needed to enforce a no-fly zone.  In the long run, humanitarian intervention in a Muslim country to save Muslim lives will improve American legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world. 

If members of Congress are unsure how their constituents feel about stopping genocide in Darfur, they might look at:

• The quarter of a million dollars raised by the Genocide Intervention Network to support the African Union peacekeepers who are the only line of defense for Darfurians.
• Oregon, Illinois, New Jersey and a dozen universities’ targeted divestment from companies supporting the Sudanese genocidal campaign in Darfur.  (The California State Teachers’ Retirement System divested $14 million on April 6th).
• Tens of thousands of concerned Americans rallying against genocide in Washington DC on April 30th.

As long as Khartoum continues to deny its responsibility to protect its own civilians from genocide, Americans will increasingly call on the United States to take a leading role.

Comments

[libertarian soldier]

Anyone who supports enforcement of a no-fly zone in an area as huge as Darfur does so without knowing what it would take to establish it--including Wes Clark who spent all his time as CINCEUR dealing with Europe. And Sudan is in CENTCOM's AOR, anyway. Given the lack of infrastructure and the rainy season it would require taking over N'Djamena airport (the closest with a runway that could hold tankers, AWACS, or more than one fighter). Oh, and have you noticed rebels are operating all over eastern Chad and have--according to the BBC--approached within 100km of N'Djamena? The only alternative would be to establish a US/NATO airbase (i.e. build it) in contested Chadian or within sovereign Sudanese territory. Politically tough, very expensive, and how do you get the fuel in other than multiple tankers? And maybe you have read someting about the state of the USAF tanker fleet?
"The few aerial and intelligence assets needed to enforce a no-fly zone", indeed.

[Tassled Loafered Leech]

Further- at 600 miles west of the Red Sea over Sudanese airspace or 900 miles south over Libyan airspace, naval air is no help, either. Logistics is always the sticking point.

[Tequila]

Sudan-backed Chadian rebels are now attacking Chad's capital itself. The French may be able to keep Deby in power for now, but Chad is nowhere stable enough to stage any kind of NATO or US military response.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/world/14chad.html

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[backpack]

The above writing was brilliant. I discover it very worthy of note and I will certainly forward this to my buddies on the net. Anyway, thanks for sharing this. backpack