Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog: Darfur, Continued

February 2010

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Thanks to Norm Singleton and Quincy for commenting on my initial post Thinking Out Loud About Darfur. I did post it to be provocative, and to be clear, I am not advocating intervening in Darfur. I’m asking the question, not suggesting an answer.

My initial post should have been clear that I see that there’s a very strong case for doing nothing about Darfur. I don’t, however, believe that freedomistas should simply and blithely wave their hands and say, “None of our business.” To me, being a human being should mean to have compassion about the plight of others, innocent people who are being slaughtered simply because they happen to live in a particular geography. Such callousness is not my cup of tea. Of course, having compassion does not necessarily mean taking military action.

Perhaps Quincy’s solution is the more appropriate. Worldwide protests may do the trick.

Quincy also makes a great point: If the African and Arab nations don’t see fit to intervene, why should the US? Certainly without a call by their neighbors who are closer physically and culturally, it truly is a fool’s errand. But what if the African and Arab nations did ask the US to intervene in some manner? And they wanted, say, logistical and air support to stop the senseless killing?

Our first reaction might be to say, No, none of our business. But, like Reagan’s action in Grenada, this might be a case where I might bend my strongly held views on non-intervention. Why? Mostly because “life” is the first words in our list of rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Quincy correctly points us to the notion that “civil society is the key to bring lasting change.” Still, people cannot have “civil society” if they are being slaughtered. The exigencies of the moment may suggest that doing something – in context – is preferable to doing nothing.

Further, Quincy points out that the Islamic terrorists would use intervention in Darfur by the US as “spin” against the US. I concur. For that reason alone, the case for intervention is weak. But what if the hypothetical were true: What if the African and Arab nations asked the US to lend logistical and air support to quell the violence, and the US said No? That, too, would likely not play well in Africa and the Middle East. The US intervenes in Iraq for dubious reasons, but won’t help out in Sudan for purely humanitarian reasons? That truly would be hypocrisy.

Norm of course makes excellent points about the Constitution. No question that the Founders and Framers were generally opposed to entangling alliances. But they did allow for treaties in the Constitution. They did intervene in Canada prior to the War of 1812. And Jefferson himself did dispatch US forces to put down the Barbary Pirates.

At this point, it seems that anyone who voluntarily joins the military has no expectation of fighting only on US soil. The historical record is clear: The US sends the military around the globe. I oppose it, but signing up for the military does seem to suggest one is signing up to be a “global cop.”

Norm’s best point is the financing of a prospective action in Darfur. Taxes are taken by force from virtually all to be used by some. I certainly take that point. But let’s say that perhaps 90% of the American people favored a true humanitarian intervention to stop another Holocaust in Darfur. Yes, the 10% would be wronged in that case, no question. But to expect the 90% to form Lincoln Brigade’s seems a bit silly to me. The Lincoln Brigades were, after all, an exception, an historical rarity.

Might the exigencies of the moment and the technologies available suggest that, in some cases, the case for purely humanitarian military action is justified? The knee-jerk libertarian answer is, of course, no.

To be clear, based on the Iraq War travesty, I have no confidence that the Bush Administration could possibly handle the Darfur situation in a reasonable, appropriate manner. But, like Reagan’s intervention in Grenada, some intervention in theory can be stomached, if not supported wholeheartedly. I remain strongly biased against intervention generally, but I remain open to the possibility that there may be rare times in which judgment and compassion can overrule ideological bright lines.

But, then, I’ve been wrong before. Maybe the world is black and white, but for the life of me, I don’t see it. Ever, actually.

-Robert Capozzi

Comments

Robert,

Compassion is an emotion that can escape common sense. Yes, we need to be compassionate towards the victims of Darfur. But, at the same time logic, reason, and rationale must be considered. US citizens will do good by sending food, clothing, medicine, and shelter. Let the sovereign nations in the region intervene militarily. They know the culture, customs, and concerns much more than we.

The reason African and Arab nations don't do anything is because they understand this to be business as usual, tribal politics. You cannot convince me that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or South Africa's well equipped, well trained, and well funded militaries are not able to the job.

They don't do anything because they are much more familiar in the reasons why this is happening. Why don't you compel France or Canada to do something? They favor any opportunity to outshine the US. There military is equally as good as ours. Here is a chance for all the anti-American world leaders to score some points.

The UN is a big waste of time and money. There are more conflicts, wars, and human tragedy since its founding. It is befuddling, at this time, that the member states are not pressuring the Sudanese government, by diplomacy, to stop the violence.

Robert, I cannot believe that out of the almost 200 countries in the world that the US is the only one capable of doing something.

If you want to advocate continuing blatant disregard of the original intent of the US constitution, by wanting the US military to be the world's policeman, don't call yourself a libertarian or free liberal. Call yourself progressive, socialist, democrat, left wing liberal, republican or imperialist. Limited government is the libertarian philosophy and the reason why people become libertarian.

Lets stop the madness the same way Gandhi, the civil rights movement, and 1960 American hippies did. By protest and press. I have learned from my military experience that the pen and words written with it are the much more powerful weapon.

The world is what bifocals you are looking through. Its either real or utopian. You live life in this world with the cards you are dealt and in faith or no faith. You cannot control anything but your actions and your hope for the best.
My hope is everlasting peace for the people of Darfur.

By the way, the US needs to pull troops out of Europe, Japan, Korea, Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Iraq now. We look like the Roman Empire.

Posted by: Quincy | May 12, 2006 12:58 PM