Hypocrisy on Sudan

So which is it? Interventionism or isolationism?

I ask this question in reply to the growing cry for action against the genocide of the tribal population of Darfur. Since early 2003, nearly 200,000 people have died in the war between the Sudanese government, which backs a variety of Islamist militias, and rebels in the Darfur region. This has led to many liberal groups and individuals to take a different attitude on the issue of whether the US should use force in the Muslim world.

George Clooney, also an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, has called for action. While appearing on HBO’s Late Night with Bill Maher, he concurred the host Bill Maher’s conclusion that a “lack of American credibility” in the world and hidden racism is the cause of the government not reacting the way Bill Clinton did to the genocide of Muslims in Kosovo in 1999.

Surely Clooney knows that if the United Nations were to take action against Darfur, it would be the United States that would wind up doing most of the heavy lifting. If you were to hold Clooney to his word, you’d know that he doesn’t appear to believe America can do any heavy lifting anymore. In 2003, he said on the Iraq war, “I believe Rumsfeld thinks this is a war that can be won, but there is no such thing anymore. We can’t beat anyone anymore.” If we can’t beat anyone anymore, why should we be able to beat the Sudanese government?

Sudan has not attacked us, doesn’t have nuclear weapons, and has not invaded its neighbors. If we were to take action, it would be an “unprovoked” (in the manner that the Iraq invasion was “unprovoked”) action against a Muslim country with a large supply of oil. What happened to “no blood for oil?” After all, after the war it would be American and European oil companies that will get the gift of being able to obtain oil from a US-backed Sudanese government without feeling the guilt of supporting a genocidal regime.

Bill Clinton’s biggest mistake in office, sexual liaisons ignored, may be his failure to do anything in reaction to the genocide in Rwanda. One of his greatest achievements was using his power to do what the Europeans and the United Nations failed to do by taking out Slobadon Milosevic. We should do something in Sudan, not just in order to end the horrors occurring there but to stop Sudan from becoming a jihadi hot spot, as it could be under their current Islamic government.

During the 1990s, Osama bin Laden was provided safe haven in Sudan, just as he was in Afghanistan. On a tape aired on the Arab network Aljazeera last month, bin Laden revealed that UN peacekeepers are now the enemy, “”I call on mujahedeen and their supporters, especially in Sudan and the Arab peninsula, to prepare for long war again the Crusader plunderers in Western Sudan. Our goal is not defending the Khartoum government, but to defend Islam, its land and its people.”

It is entirely possible that we could see Sudan develop into a haven for Islamic terrorists. If liberals want to stop this from happening, and support what could be termed a pre-emptive war, than maybe they should rethink how they feel about the role of American power in the world.