Monday, October 02, 2006

Susan E. Rice, Anthony Lake and Donald M. Payne - We Saved Europeans. Why Not Africans? -

Susan E. Rice, Anthony Lake and Donald M. Payne - We Saved Europeans. Why Not Africans? -

Here are their brief bios:
Susan E. Rice, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was assistant secretary of state for African affairs from 1997 to 2001. Anthony Lake, a professor at Georgetown University, was national security adviser from 1993 to 1997. Donald M. Payne is a Democratic representative from New Jersey.
And they advocate the following:
After swift diplomatic consultations, the United States should press for a U.N. resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum: accept unconditional deployment of the U.N. force within one week or face military consequences. The resolution would authorize enforcement by U.N. member states, collectively or individually. International military pressure would continue until Sudan relented.

The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan's oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would deploy -- by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing.

If the United States fails to gain U.N. support, we should act without it. Impossible? No, the United States acted without U.N. blessing in 1999 in Kosovo to confront a lesser humanitarian crisis (perhaps 10,000 killed) and a more formidable adversary. Under NATO auspices, it bombed Serbian targets until Slobodan Milosevic acquiesced. Not a single American died in combat. Many nations protested that the United States violated international law, but the United Nations subsequently deployed a mission to administer Kosovo and effectively blessed NATO military action retroactively.


Blogger Chuck said...

If Bush went to the UN as these 3 propose and the UN did not agree to use military force to end the genocide then these 3 advocate the US invading Sudan, hopefully with the assistance of NATO.

What about the genocide that Saddam sponsered in Iraq and Bush is still being pilloried for invading. Is there a difference in genocide in Africa as opposed to Iraq? Come on! If Bush were to invade Sudan it would immediately become Bush's war and the democrats would be screaming about an exit strategy.

If these people want the US to invade Sudan, they should get the congress to propose it and sign in blood that they will support the war until it has accoplished an end to genocide. That ain't gonna happen because our congress has no balls and couldn't agree on what color to paint an outhouse.

I responded to one of your comments at Kuru Lounge and stated that I hate duplicity. These 3 sterling figures epitomize the duplicity I hate. It is easy to talk about sending troops to right the wrongs in Sudan but it is damned hard to be the one sending them.

5:41 PM  
Blogger copy editor said...

VERY good points.

5:44 PM  
Blogger Nikolas K. Gvosdev said...

Kosovo isn't quite the success story they'd like to portray, as I've noted at The Washington Realist (and you've posted comments on as well). Beyond that is the assumption that there are purely humanitarian missions that are nice and clean. And it is real easy to propose these things in the opposition--after all, didn't Bush say no more Rwandas on his watch when he was still governor?

5:18 PM  
Blogger copy editor said...

It is most certainly the luxury of the opposition to propose such involvement.

5:22 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home