Darfur

This is in response to a discussion at Bob's blog.
What needs to happen in Darfur? Personally, I think that we need an international (preferably UN sanctioned) intervention force large enough to go into the Darfur region and provide security for the people there. Take the estimated number of soldiers it would take to secure the area, double it, and send them in, with the authority to defend both themselves and any people coming under attack. After securing the area, they should disarm the militias that are causing the violence in the first place, making sure they aren’t in a position to start things up again when the intervention force leaves.

Why this can’t happen: First of all, Sudan. Many African countries and the UN want to send in an African intervention force, but Sudan is hesitant to allow them into its sovereign territory. Since the UN is a body that is restricted by the sovereignty of its members, an “invasion” is out of the question, despite the fact that the militias are most likely loosely controlled, if not directed, by the government in Khartoum.
There’s also the issue of committing troops, whether US or otherwise, to die for a cause that doesn’t directly affect us. After Somalia, it is unlikely that any President will ever risk our troops for purely humanitarian causes again, regardless of the flaws inherent in our presence in Somalia in the early 1990s.

There’s a lot of room here to talk about the issue of unilateral action and the defense of human rights, Somalia and Rwanda, but genocide will never break the sovereignty of the Sudanese government because no one gives a shit. It is too costly (politically and economically) to invade a country to stop the killing of a few hundred thousand people, most of whom live in extreme poverty and will all probably die before the age of 40 regardless. We can’t see it on our streets. It doesn’t keep us from getting to work (gas prices) or our own soldiers from coming home (Iraq).

How do we persuade our representatives to care about the issue? I think telling them that we care about it is all we can do. If we care, and contact them, they have to care, because they depend on us for their jobs. They do actually represent us. Sure, one voice isn’t much, but that’s why we’re doing it, not just you, or me, or George Clooney or Bono. All together, we are a thunderstorm. If our voices and the sanctity of life don’t sway them, then relate Sudan to the war on terror (a very real correlation). It’s my belief that the only true way to eliminate the terrorists is to leave the world, and all the terrorists supporters, with little reason to hate us. We do that by giving them aid and food, so why not security and protection, and perhaps the promise of a life where going to look for firewood doesn’t carry the risk of gang rape.

Dear Sir or Madam Representative, I care about the genocide in Darfur. It needs to stop because it goes against the principles this country was founded on. I realize we cannot commit troops or much money to any sort of intervention force, but I urge you to use all time and influence possible to get the Sudanese government to allow an international security force into Darfur to stop the killing. This is a time when a positive US image abroad is vital to both the war on terror and our security at home. Please make a stand to show the world that we care about more than just ourselves. Don’t let this be a time we say “never again” again. Thanks.

Those are my thoughts on Darfur. Despite being already longwinded, I could probably go on for a bit longer, because the complexity of everything means that saying “we should send in an intervention force” is ignorant, because it’s a temporary solution. In the long run, with good policy and perhaps a sense of companionship, we need a stable Africa, where the leaders step down from power when they lose an election and a well-paid, standing army can provide constant security against internal and external threats.

Where did I go wrong here? Where did I go right? Are there better ways?