Two Sides to a War

I'm fairly certain I don't grasp the full complexity of the situation, but it continually strikes me that enthusiasts for military intervention in Darfur, insofar as they're not just poseurs eager to use the corpses of thousands as fodder for cheap UN-bashing (see also), are oddly in denial about the fact that there's an actual war happening with multiple sides. A feasible intervention against the government, it seems to me, would have to be an intervention on behalf of the rebels and their political agenda.

This is a course of action that nobody actually wants to explicitly endorse. Perhaps that's wrong. Perhaps Darfuri independence is a cause we should get behind. I'm skeptical that re-drawing all the lines on the map is the solution to Africa's problems -- seems more like a Pandora's Box to me -- but maybe someone can make that case. This other idea that an intervention could somehow proceed without us taking sides seems a bit daft.

Comments

It looks just like Kosovo to me. That was sold as a humanitarian intervention, and wound up as support for the KLA's agenda.

Posted by David Tomlin | October 23, 2006 1:27 PM

I agree. I definitely support the rebels in their struggle against the genocidal maniacs in Khartoum, but it's not the UN's place to pick sides in wars.

On the other hand, direct U.S. support for the rebels might be a good idea, since they're a plucky rebel group fighting to save their homes and families from annihilation by a baleful imperial aggressor. If France helped us win our revolution (and without the French blockade we would have lost), I don't see why we couldn't do the same for the Fur.

Posted by Mr. Noah | October 23, 2006 1:40 PM

I definitely support the rebels in their struggle against the genocidal maniacs in Khartoum ... direct U.S. support for the rebels might be a good idea, since they're a plucky rebel group fighting to save their homes and families from annihilation by a baleful imperial aggressor.

That's an interesting perspective, as the last rebel group of note fighting the government is the JEM, which is Islamist and is seeking imposition of Sharia on areas that do not currently enjoy that system of civil law.

The other rebel group, which is not Islamist, has now joined the Sudanese government forces, and is fighting the JEM.

Posted by double-plus-ungood | October 23, 2006 3:53 PM

The only politically possible way of dealing with Darfur and future humanitarian catastrophes may well be some kind of American legion, as in a force of American-led soldiers from the developing world (mostly) who cost a fraction of what American soldiers or mercenaries cost, and in return for a period of service are given a path to American citizenship.

As it happens, we already have the beginnings of an American legion in Iraq. Who do you suppose is paying for those contingents from poor Latin American countries? Who do you suppose is overseeing them?

And even if it is under the auspices of a radically reformed UN, it will still be more or less a military arm of the American Empire. And it will be better in many ways than not doing anything at all.

Posted by Linus | October 23, 2006 5:25 PM

Um, the only Latin American contingent that's been in Iraq in recent years has been a battalion of El Salvadorans, under 400 strong. Nicaragua, Honduras and the DomRep all pulled their troops out two and a half years ago after one rotation.

No offense to the martial might of El Salvador, but you might need at least a couple hundred more of them to pacify the whole world, I'm guessing.

Posted by BruceR | October 23, 2006 11:09 PM