End the Genocide in Darfur!

We’ve all heard that, and we would all like for it to stop. According to Danny at Doc’s Political Parlor (one of my favorite web sites), Howard Dean says it is an issue that Democrats can use to appeal to young Evangelicals.  But… is it our job? I think so…  What can the US do about it? And which party is more serious about ending the genocide? Hint: ‘Just Words’ don’t work with murderous dictators…

First some background: Darfur (Dar al-Fur) is ‘the land of the Fur tribe’, it is a western region of Sudan, which is the largest country in Africa (920,000 square miles - 3 1/2 times bigger than Texas). Sudan’s 40 million people have been ruled since 1993 by Omar al-Bashir (a murderous dictator). Sudan gained its independence from Egypt / UK in 1956. It has disputed borders with Kenya and Ethiopia and Egypt.

Sudan also has lots of oil (400,000 barrels a day) - 70% of which is sold to China (10% of China’s oil comes from Sudan). The Chinese sell military equipment to Sudan and train the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army. China has hundreds of ‘peacekeeping’ troops in Sudan.

The Darfur genocide is hard to quantify, but about 200,000 people have been killed according to many estimates, plus thousands of people have been displaced. The Sudanese Government and associated militias (Janjaweed) are condemned for the genocide.  Slavery, human trafficking, and rape are fairly common.

There are 20,000 international peacekeepers in Sudan (UN / African Union Mission in Darfur - UNAMID).

Pretty nasty place - I can see why we all want that to stop. But how can Darfur be an issue for Democrats? After all, Saddam Hussein (a murderous dictator) killed as many people in ONE YEAR (1991 - 100,000 Kurds and 130,000 Shia) as have died in Darfur. In 1988, Saddam killed 50,000 Kurds using Weapons of Mass Destruction such as Sarin and Mustard Gas. Barack Obama opposed the War in Iraq…

Barack Obama says that “increasing pressure on the Sudanese” and “deployment of a robust international force” will end the genocide.

John McCain goes further.  In 2006, McCain and Bob Dole published a plan to end the genocide. McCain called for NATO (US) to enforce a ‘No Fly Zone’ over Darfur and “push the United Nations to draw up firm plans for the entrance of a robust force into Darfur and contingency plans for the force to enter without Sudanese consent”, with US logistical, intelligence, and diplomatic support.

Compare the two plans: which one has a better chance of stopping a murderous dictator intent on killing his own people?  Which candidate has recent experience helping bring a murderous dictator to justice - and which one opposed that action?

By the way, ANWR can produce 780,000 barrels of oil per day, almost double that of Sudan.

Regardless of opinion on the moral or political merits of the war on terror one thing is clear: it is a financial disaster.  The latest estimate pegs the total cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to reach $2.4 TRILLION by 2017.

Let’s put that number into perspective…

There are 5,844 days between 9/11/2001 and 9/11/2017.  That is equivalent to:

• 140,256 hours
• 8,415,360 minutes
• 504,921,600 seconds

Seeing “$2.4 trillion” seems like a lot, but it really hits home to write it out: $2,400,000,000,000.  Put another way, this country will spend $4,753 every second of the day for 16 years to finance the wars.  Oh, and its being put on the proverbial credit card and interest payments could reach $705 billion.

Given that the government can only tax so much wealth from private citizens before causing economic slowdown and accompanying drops in tax revenue this smells an awful lot like a recipe for bankruptcy.

Osama bin Laden has released another tape (transcript here), likely recorded within the last month or so.  The mere fact that the man at the top of the organization responsible for 9/11 is still alive is both depressing and embarrassing.  The fact that he is not only alive, but is releasing propaganda tapes that will doubtlessly fuel pro-jihadi sentiment is revolting.  The sole reason he is still alive can be described with one word: Iraq.

I backed Bush when he sold the Iraq war to the country.  He painted a compelling picture of imminent doom.  We’ve since learned that his portrayal of the threat was grossly over blown - intentionally or not.  As a result we’ve lost more men and women in uniform in Iraq than the number of civilians lost on 9/11.  And what do we have to show for it?  A war with no end in sight (i.e. more American casualties and money).  An enemy, Al-Qaeda, that is at or near 9/11 strength.  A weakened military as a result of seasoned soldiers - the defenders of our nation - killed in action as well as delayed or canceled acquisition, maintenance, and replenishment programs.  Oh, and we still have public enemy number one kicking sand in our face.

Personally, I don’t think there are any good options going forward in Iraq.  They are all varying shades of bad.  I want to say that we should stay and win, but I debate as to whether we can win or will like what we get if we did.  Militarily we can wipe the mat with anyone.  But we’re not in a military conflict.  Our soldiers are acting as glorified policemen; riding around waiting to be attacked by insurgents and only then responding appropriately.  This is not a position we should put our military in.  They are trained and equipped to win wars by killing or otherwise incapacitating the enemy - and they are very good at their job.

I only say I believe claiming victory will be difficult to impossible because we’re not facing an enemy that will just unequivocally surrender one day.  Maybe we can reach the subjective state where we believe violence has subsided to the point that we can leave, but even this is hardly victory in the traditional sense.  Nation building is not an endeavor that ends in a clearly demarcated victory even when it ends well.

But, what happens if we are victorious?  That day, which would be a great day indeed, will be the day we cede full control of Iraq to their elected, democratic government.  It is not exactly a remote possibility that they might elect a group of people like Hezbollah, similar to what happened in Lebanon.  So we could end up trading thousands of American lives and countless billions of dollars for an anti-American, anti-Israel (i.e. regionally destabilizing) government sympathetic to Iran.  That should make us safer.

But getting back to OBL, Newsweek had a good, lengthy description of what happened to the pursuit of OBL and his cohorts when the Iraq war began.  The “dead or alive” rhetoric - which I support 100% - morphed into a policy of putting the top talent and lion’s share of resources into a war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.  The accounts in the article - assuming they are accurate - are disappointing.  There are tales of military officers hesitating at the moment of truth for fear of having a blemish on their records as well as imposing absurd bureaucratic requirements on special forces personnel.  It all points to a failure of leadership.  OBL would be taking a dirt nap right now if Bush had focused all of our efforts on eliminating him; simple as that.

In his tape OBL is critical of, one might even say he is mocking, Democrats - and for good reason.  While the Republicans continue to unconditionally back a war that we shouldn’t be engaged in the Democrats won control of Congress based in part (large part depending on who you’re asking) on Iraq.  Instead of vigorously pushing for the changes demanded of them by the electorate they have instead tried to use the war as a political football, complicitly keeping it going so that they can point to it and tell their supporters how badly the Republicans are screwing things up.  They have no real desire to end the war because they know that if the war is still raging next year it will likely gift wrap the White House for them.

Few Republicans have held back in their attacks on Barack Obama for a comment he made recently about the (not so) hypothetical situation of sending our military into Pakistan with or without Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s consent.  Here is Obama’s actual quote:

“Let me make this clear.  There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” - Barack Obama

Really, his statement is not all that different from what George Bush was saying a few short years ago.  Remember the “You’re either with us or against us,” and “If you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists; you’re an enemy of the United States, and you will be held to account,” lines? Obama is kind of parroting Bush’s philosophy, which was (and is) popular with the same people who now criticize Obama.  Seriously, in the specific hypothetical situation that Obama described if Musharraf would not allow us to pursue known terrorists then doesn’t that equate to harboring terrorists, thereby making Musharraf one of them?

The broader message that Obama is trying to convey is damaging to Bush and his supporters.  The neo-cons’ burning desire to topple Saddam and experiment with nation building in one of the least hospitable climes in this world caused this nation to lose focus on the ones that attacked us.  Instead we’ve fabricated a second breeding ground for radical Islamists who want to kill us and allowed Al Qaeda to return to full strength.  Meanwhile, the masterminds of 9/11 continue to generate propaganda tapes aided by the safety that our alliance with Pakistan offers them.  Obama says he would pull the trigger if Musharraf refused and I can’t help but agree.  After all, you’re either with us or against us.

Here is another must read column from John Stossel.  It discusses how the threat of terrorism is overblown and the fear it incites actually causes deaths and loss of wealth itself.

[Ohio State political science professor John] Mueller also says the threat to the average American is overblown. “Your chances of being killed, at present rates, by an international terrorist outside of a war zone is something like 1 in 80,000,” he says. “It’s about the same as being killed by an asteroid.”

…

Sure enough, since 9/11, the biggest terrorist successes have been the bombings of commuter trains in Madrid and a nightclub in Bali. The death toll from each attack was about 200 people. “Outside of war zones, the amount of destruction is maybe 200 people a year,” says Mueller. “That’s 200 people too many, but that’s hardly an existential threat. In the United States, between 300 and 400 people die every year just from drowning in bathtubs.”

…

Then the bureaucracy hypes terrorism to justify its pork.

“Terror porn” is what economist Veronique de Rugy calls it. Why “porn”? “Because porn sells, [and] terrorism sells even better,” she says. “It’s great for politicians. They can campaign on the fact that they are protecting us. They also can campaign on the fact that they’re bringing more money to their states.”

Lots of small towns do get absurd grants for homeland security. Lake County, Tenn., a rural county with only 8,000 people, got nearly $200,000 in homeland-security money.

“I don’t know that terrorists will come, but I don’t know they won’t come,” Lake County Mayor Macie Roberson told us, smiling.

At least he didn’t do what Columbus, Ohio did: spend it on bulletproof vests for police dogs.

…

Of course, terrorism is a real threat. But fear kills people, too. A University of Michigan study found that an additional 1,000 Americans died in car accidents in the three months after Sept. 11, because they were afraid to fly. We need to keep risk in perspective.

From across the pond:

An overwhelming majority of people in Britain are willing to surrender civil liberties to help tackle the threat of terrorism, the nation’s leading social research institute will disclose today.

The survey found seven in every 10 people think compulsory identity cards for all adults would be “a price worth paying” to reduce the threat of terrorism. Eight in 10 say the authorities should be able to tap the phones of people suspected of involvement in terrorism, open their mail and impose electronic tagging or home curfews.

…

But fear of terrorism did not reduce people’s support for human rights in the international arena. About 84% agreed that “when a country is at war it must always abide by international human rights law.” And 78% rejected the proposition that “during a war it is acceptable for the armed forces to torture people.”

Regardless of whether torture is an effective weapon against terrorism, I think it is quite interesting that the British would voluntarily sacrifice many liberties they enjoy - a sort of subtle torture against the populace - but they are unwilling to cause any discomfort to those who would kill them.

I think that liberties are what make our country great.  I would rather see the “rights” of others, especially others who are trying to kill me, infringed before I sacrifice mine.

I saw one of the stupidest bumper stickers ever a couple of days ago: ”I’m already against the next war.”

It’s one thing to oppose the Iraq war.  Certainly the Iraq war is less meritorious than many previous ones.  It’s another to favor peace.  I think all of us would prefer to live at peace^*.  But to reflexively oppose war without exception is beyond stupid.  It’s suicidal.  Some wars are fought out of necessity for preservation of one’s self and one’s allies.  To oppose such wars is to favor your own demise.

^*Peace, by the way, is not merely the absence of open, armed conflict.  The Israelis who live in constant fear of a rocket crashing through their roof are not at peace.  Peace is the absence of the threat of conflict.

This article is a must read.  A 29 year old U.S. Navy veteran named Donald Vance, who was working as a security contractor in Iraq, noticed that his Iraqi employer was engaged in some shady activities.  He contacted the FBI and blew the whistle.  American soldiers raided the company and detained Vance.  He was held in the same prison complex as Saddam Hussein and labeled a “threat.”  Despite assurances from the FBI that he was not a threat the military continued to detain him, all the while subjecting him to the same treatment afforded run of the mill (alleged) terrorists.  He was not released until over three months had elapsed.

American guards arrived at the man’s cell periodically over the next several days, shackled his hands and feet, blindfolded him and took him to a padded room for interrogation, the detainee said. After an hour or two, he was returned to his cell, fatigued but unable to sleep.

The fluorescent lights in his cell were never turned off, he said. At most hours, heavy metal or country music blared in the corridor. He said he was rousted at random times without explanation and made to stand in his cell. Even lying down, he said, he was kept from covering his face to block out the light, noise and cold. And when he was released after 97 days he was exhausted, depressed and scared.

It doesn’t sound like torture when the recipient is an alleged terrorist, but when the person involved is an apparently completely innocent American citizen it doesn’t sound so harmless, does it?

What may be even more troubling is this:

Mr. Vance said he made numerous written requests — for a lawyer, for blankets, for paper to write letters home. Mr. Vance said that he wrote 10 letters to Ms. Schwarz, but that only one made it to Chicago. Dated July 17, it was delivered late last month by the Red Cross.

I can understand it if the military needs to surveil all incoming and outgoing mail, resulting in some delays, but only one of ten letters being delivered in a roughly half year time period is unacceptable.

Just think about how many innocent Iraqis might be detained, but don’t have the full force of Congressmen and the State Department lobbying for their release.  We’re losing the moral high ground as we lose this war. 

This would be funny if it weren’t true.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, who incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tapped to head the Intelligence Committee when the Democrats take over in January, failed a quiz of basic questions about al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of the key terrorist organizations the intelligence community has focused on since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

When asked by CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda is one or the other of the two major branches of Islam — Sunni or Shiite — Reyes answered “they are probably both,” then ventured “Predominantly — probably Shiite.”

That is wrong. Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organization and views Shiites as heretics.

So Pelosi passes over the ranking member of the committee (Harmon) for the chair.  Then she sets her sights on one of the more corrupt members of the House (Hastings).  Finally she chose an imbecile.  I guess that’s what was left on the bottom after she “drained the swamp.”

I got into a discussion with a coworker, I’ll call him Fred, today about sacrificing civil liberties and/or constitutional rights in exchange for the potential to prevent a terrorist attack or any taking of human life.  We’re both law abiding citizens with nothing to hide, but Fred was willing to allow significant intrusion into his life (including active monitoring of all telephone conversations), while I was a good bit more hesitant to give the government that much power.

Eventually our conversation evolved (devolved?) into the question of whether or not the government should have more leeway to detain and prosecute “terrorists.”  I told Fred about Bush’s recent decision to deny habeas corpus to individuals - even U.S. citizens - whom the government deems to be “terrorists.”  Fred (at first) didn’t have a problem with that because “why would the government call someone a terrorist if it were not true?”

The problem is that governments consist of real people and people make mistakes.  Additionally, some people are willing to act in an unethical manner.  The result is that government is not infallible and is not always virtuous.  Not one hour after my discussion with Fred I saw this article linked on the Drudge Report.

The article reports about a 17 year old girl in Nebraska who was wrongly arrested, arraigned, and jailed for one week.  The young lady had the misfortune of looking strikingly similar to a 19 year old who was subsequently arrested after the 17 year olds release.  Just imagine that she, or any other U.S. citizen, happened to look like someone the U.S. government suspected to be a terrorist.  This girl could have been picked up and held without a court hearing or access to legal counsel.  She would probably still be in jail right now (maybe in a foreign country with a sketchy human rights record) and her family and friends may not even know what happened to her.

That story, which is regrettably common, gave Fred something to think about.