Darfur: Another Mogadishu?

Don't tell me that you haven't seen the heart-wrenching media campaign to garner public support for President Bush to send American help to Sudan, specifically Darfur. Malnourished waifs with pleading expressions are pictured in barren desert refugee camps with overlays detailing the numbers who have died.

There is no doubt that the situation in Darfur is desperate, made so by Islamic fundamentalists who are working "hand-in-glove" with the government. Thug Islamist Janjaweed militias, trained and backed by al-Qaeda, have been on a rampage for several years to steal, kidnap, rape and murder black African villagers throughout the Darfur region. Atrocities against children seem to be their specialty.

Ostensibly, the Janjaweed are razing the countryside to fight off Sudanese rebel insurgencies. Nonetheless, black Africans are displaced to refugee camps where some help has been provided by international aide groups. But the camps too have been attacked by the Janjaweed, killing people and destroying donated foodstuffs. Even NGO aide workers and journalists have been targeted for kidnapping (for ransom) and murder.

The African Union (AU) sent forces to stabilize the region. They were ineffective for a variety of reasons with the most important being that they lacked the political will from member African Union nations. The Janjaweed plowed through the AU forces like loose loam on the farrow back forty.

The United Nations has been toying with the idea of doing something to help. SecGen Kofi Annan ordered a report to determine if genocide is occurring in Darfur and concluded that there is no genocide. That determination allowed the UN to do nothing, and they have done just that. Oh, I must mention that the UN issued statements of outrage and orders to stop the killing and blah, blah, blah. The UN talks and nothing happens.

However, calls for UN action did produce one result. It was a threat from the Sudanese government that UN troops would be attacked as invaders. So, the UN doesn't do anything and likely won't, however, if they do, Sudan will declare war against the "invading" UN troops.

To recap, neither the AU nor the UN has found a solution to the desperate situation in Darfur and it doesn't seem likely that they will. And, all the while, the Islamist Janjaweed keep killing black Africans.

Now, I see two issues here. First is the situation in Darfur. It's more than tragic and, since no other group has taken a leadership position on finding a solution, I'm not against U.S. involvement. I also believe that U.S. intervention will become necessary because Darfur is just a symptom of the larger malady, the murderous spread of Islamic fundamentalism. The inhabitants of Darfur have been systematically rousted from their homes because they are Africans and not Muslim.

The same type situation is happening in Somalia where the al-Qaeda-backed Islamic Courts Union (ICU) is finishing up a takeover of the nation. In fact, the ICU is so sassy in its success that war with Ethiopia was declared. Presumably, the war is necessary for the ICU to defend Somalian territory along an ill-defined border with Ethiopia. More logically, the ICU is simply enlarging the area under its control. It sure doesn't take a map expert to see that Ethiopia may be the next target for al-Qaeda. The Sudanese Janjaweed are pressuring the western border and the Somalian Islamic Courts Union is warring on the east. It's a firepot of growing al-Qaeda trouble in the region.

The second issue is a complaint. From a geopolitical standpoint, there is no reason for immediate American involvement in Darfur. From a humanitarian standpoint, however, immediate relief is needed. And the need should be addressed by all humanity, not just America. The African Union and the United Nations apparently can't get excited about Darfur. The European Union, Russia, China, the Indian subcontinent and South America have expressed little, if any, interest. Yet, I and other Americans have been bombarded by the media about the need for U.S. action in Darfur. And, it will continue until the first soldier is killed.

For example, I just saw actor George Clooney on television discussing his efforts in talking to the UN and to Kofi Annan about Darfur and the need for immediate action. I don't believe he expects the UN to do a damn thing. I suspect that Clooney is making news entirely for the sake of the American public, hoping to put pressure on Congress and the administration to take action. Now we, the American television viewers, can expect a compliant liberal media to show repeats of his appearance, over and over, as if it's America's job to stop the genocide.

Tell me, how is it that the liberals can demand that U.S. forces get out of Iraq, where we have a strong interest, while at the same time, they can call for American forces to go to Darfur, where we don't have a vested interest?

The last time the U.S. became engaged in an African humanitarian venture (by sending food to Somalia), it was media-driven and America took it in the shorts. That stunt cost the lives of 18 of the bravest and best-trained fighting men in the world. I personally blame Defense Secretary, Les Aspin, and President Clinton, who appointed him. Neither cared enough to give needed military support in Mogadishu and American soldiers died. The corpse of one Ranger was even dragged through the streets, an unforgettable humiliation.

And one man who didn't forget, Osama bin Laden, has been quoted as saying that the episode in Mogadishu proved that America can be defeated.

In a nutshell, the effort for humanitarian aid in Somalia was media-driven and no geopolitical U.S. interests were in play. Similarly, the effort for humanitarian aid in Darfur is media-driven (aimed at the U.S. exclusively, it seems) and no immediate geopolitical U.S. interests are in play.

The first case resulted in the deaths of American soldiers and emboldened Osama bin Laden to believe that al-Qaeda can win a war with America.

Readers can make the call on the second case.