Eric Reeves at The New Republic (via Butterflies and Wheels) – scroll down – argues the case for NATO intervention in the light of our failure thus far to do anything to prevent the Darfur genocide:
Perhaps the largest challenge will be to disarm and neutralize the Janjaweed, an increasingly diffuse force. Many Janjaweed members have been removed to other parts of Sudan; many others have been incorporated into the police, security forces, or paramilitary organizations such as the notorious Popular Defense Force. Disarming the Janjaweed must be done in a head-on manner by NATO troops, for the militias are not a true military force and would be overwhelmed quickly if they resisted in the face of well-trained, well-armed NATO forces operating with robust rules of engagement.
The two major insurgency movements–the Sudan Liberation Army/Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement–must be put on forceful notice that to the extent they interfere with the establishment of secure conditions or humanitarian operations, they will also be militarily targeted.
Given what happened in Iraq, where a long-oppressed people did not receive Western troops as warmly as the Bush administration had predicted, it may seem presumptuous to say NATO forces would be welcomed by the African populations of Darfur. Nonetheless, countless conversations with Darfuris have convinced me that Western intervention would in fact be welcomed with enthusiasm, especially given growing disaffection with the performance of A.U. forces.
Disarm and neutralise the Janjaweed? Does anyone doubt that this would be a further addition to the list of Muslim grievances for which we in London have supposedly just paid the price?
Leave a Reply