The Case Against Intervention in Darfur
The case for intervention has been supported by numerous Evangelicals, not to mention SBC titans Albert Mohler and Richard Land are also on board.
Christians are increasingly drawn to militarism and interventionism, often dressed up in humanitarianism or democratist flights of fancy.
To get a more sensible overview of possible snags associated with an African excursion, we have to turn to the non-Christian, homosexual, libertarian writer, Justin Raimondo. Praise the Lord for general revelation. Here is Raimondo (read the entire piece here):
Before we send tens of thousands more American troops into a very troubled region of the world, let us examine what these "Darfur advocates" are advocating. Both Tony Blair and retired U.S. general Wesley Clark have argued in favor of intervention, raising the "successful" war and occupation in Kosovo as a model. That was one war we didn't hear much about from the great mass of present-day "antiwar" protesters, who apparently thought that attacking a country that represented no threat to the U.S. and had never attacked us was okay, so long as it was done by a Democratic president. By going into Darfur under the rubric of "humanitarianism," the War Party can sell to anti-Bush liberals the idea of opening up another front in the Muslim world.
The Dubai brouhaha showed how easily anti-Arab sentiment can be exploited on the ostensible "Left" and utilized by the War Party to demonstrate their effective control of both major political parties – and distance themselves from an increasingly unpopular administration. The Darfur campaign is another example of their strategic shift: in both instances, instead of following President Bush's lead, they stood in opposition to the White House. Up until this point, the Bush team has been skeptical of getting involved in Sudan. As the Bush White House drags its feet in provoking the Iranians into war, the War Party is turning increasingly to the Democrats – and the ostensible liberal-Left – for support. This is beginning to pay off, as Hillary Clinton tries to out-hawk the GOP on the Iranian nukes issue, and leading Democrats take up the banner of Darfur.
From a realistic point of view, there is nothing U.S. military intervention can accomplish in Sudan except to make things far worse. Sudan would soon become Iraq II, with an influx of jihadists and a nationalistic reaction against what would become, after a short time, a de facto occupation very similar to what the Iraqis have to endure. The rebel groups, aided by Sudan's neighbors, such as Ethiopia and Eritrea, would metastasize, more weapons would pour into the region, and the probable result would be a humanitarian disaster on a much larger scale. Intervention, in short, would lead to the exact opposite of its intended result – a principle that, as a libertarian, I hold is true in economics as well as foreign policy.
But you don't have to be a libertarian to see the folly of interventionism in the case of Darfur, or Iraq. In the latter, it is the presence of the U.S. occupation force that empowers the rising anti-U.S. insurgency: the same principle would operate in Sudan. There is no reason to believe that we would be welcomed with open arms by the Sudanese any more than we were by the Iraqis. An initial euphoria – some of it staged – would soon be supplanted by a growing resentment, and the influx of jihadists would destabilize the entire region, requiring increased U.S. and "allied" forces.
"Saving" Darfur would mean opening up another theater in what the neocons refer to as "World War IV." Spreading outward from Iraq, this global conflict will pit the U.S. against a wide variety of enemies, both freelance and state-sponsored, swelling the ranks of terrorist outfits and inviting further attacks on U.S. soil. This could be construed as a "humanitarian" intervention only in the Bizarro World inhabited by our leaders, including those hailing from the entertainment industry.