Implementing a No Fly Zone is an option ignored in this article. It's a far cry from putting boots on the ground and would neutralize a key advantage the janjaweed have in their campaign. We could also arm the rebel groups so they could actually defeat the janjaweed militarily and seceed from the mess that is Sudan. Comparing our boneheaded operations in Iraq to the intelligent possibilities before us is silly.

It's not inconceivable that it could have the desired effect, but I doubt it will ever be implemented because of the blowback from our 1980s adventure in Afghanistan. Once the weapons are there, they'll never be retrieved, we can't control who ends up with them, blah blah blah. Which isn't to say we need to be sending field artillery or shoulder-launched SAMs or whatever, but they're still gunshy about the very notion, if you'll forgive the pun.

It's a shame, because I much suspect Ethiopia could easily be co-opted as an ally on this score, much as Pakistan was against the Soviets following '79, and the entire region could really use a thorough mopping up (Somalia and Chad as much as Sudan).

Plus, logistically speaking, at this point it is probably beyond the natives to form a cohesive fighting force. There really wasn't anything stopping them from doing so until now; that entire region, from the Great Lakes up through Algeria, is awash in small arms. They could certainly arm themselves, but this fact notwithstanding, they haven't been able to muster any sort of passable resistance until now, which does not bode well. I cannot see the US wanting to extend its aegis to a weak and demoralized people who only put up the barest of resistance; when they are invariably beaten regardless of air support, the myth of American invincibility would be further dented.

The northern no-fly zone worked in Iraq before the invasion because the Kurds had already demonstrated their fighting form time and again (going back to Saladin and all that shit) and were prepared to dedicate themselves to their cause. We didn't really offer them any large caches of weapons--one of my closest friends is in SpecOps and has already done multiple tours of the sandbox, the first in the north, and I have heard some tales about the state of their weaponry, and they definitely did not get much of it from us. Deplorable, yes, but at least they had something, and were fighting to protect themselves. I don't see any of that sort of spirit in Darfur. They have rolled over and presented themselves to be taken. Where are their leaders? Where is their Darfuri Paul Kagame? I don't see him. Where is the Darfuri equivalent of the RLF? It doesn't exist. What little resistance there is remains entirely tribal in nature, and reports indicate there has been next to no coordination between units against their common enemy. That's pretty pathetic. If they don't care enough to bury whatever hatchets exist between them and ruck up and stand together, well, it may be cold to say, but what happens next essentially boils down to simple Darwinian logic.

Children at play in their sandboxes. Just declare a NO Fly Zone over a sovereign nation because you don't like their treatment of their own people?

Hmmmmm.

Who are you exactly?

Who elected you king of the world?

Usama, you can't blame the US for the darfur situation because we still sorta support Khartoum in your own post, and then shoot down the idea that we should cut ties with Darfur and clean up the mess. Thats a contradiction, and it just exposes you as not really caring about darfur.

And in regards to your "question", nations forfeit national sovereignty when they violate human rights on this scale. Genocide=no more sovereignty, because the government is complicit in a de facto civil war and can no longer claim its right to the "monopoly of violence" that is inherent in a functioning sovereign government.

believes that nations would forfeit national sovereignties when they violate human rights on this scale. S/he also admitted that Genocide=no more sovereignty. No one could be against, but this should be applied to all nations without exception such as Israel that uses sophisticated US aircraft to kill unarmed innocent people whose unique wish and goal is to enjoy freedom.

PS: Inequality is FLAGRANT between Sophisticated Weapons vs. Artisanal Rockets that are used as symbols of resistance. No room for comparison.

jwschmidt:

Usama, you can't blame the US for the darfur situation because we still sorta support Khartoum in your own post, and then shoot down the idea that we should cut ties with Darfur and clean up the mess. Thats a contradiction, and it just exposes you as not really caring about darfur.

I will dismiss your swipe that I do not care about Darfur. My feelings are not open to debate, nor are my humanitarian concerns.

There have been scores of 'Darfur conflicts' within the the Muslim world since I converted to Islam. I and a growing number of other Muslims have come to realize that going from one conflict after another, Palestine, Kashmir, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Somalia, Sudan, etc. offering crisis management, emergency aid, seize fire options, etc. are not actual solutions. They are band aids that may stop the bleeding, but never close the wounds. And each time, the conflicts gets worse. All the existing institutions are recognized not only as incapable, but in fact down right corrupt in multifacets. They do not offer solutions and allowing America to get involved is sure to not solve anything except entrench American infiltration and subversion of the people, their self determination, their beliefs, and their causes.

Darfur DOES have oil. And China IS a player in the conflict. In fact, the Kenya unrest is tied to Sudan in so much as Odinga, the opposition leader, recieved funding from the Sudanes National Congress party, Omar al Bashir's party. Bashir likely seeks to offset American, British influence for Southern Sudan independence by bringing to the Kenyan presidency Odinga who will be more supportive of Sudanese unity and less likely to support the Neo Con agenda of division of Sudan, and acquisition of Southern Sudan oil.

But from my perspective, the people of Darfur and Eastern Chad are being treated as pawns by the world governments. Except for maybe George Clooney, I don't trust anything coming from American shores about Darfur. The UN is a joke. The AU does what America wants. Zionist organizations masquerading as humanitarians want to help Darfur secede from Khartoum( Secession for Darfur would definitely spell reliance on foreign powers for their sovereignty, positioning some foreign power with access and influence over Darfur oil reserves). This suggests Neo Con imperialists are tied to the Darfur rebels somehow. It is known Israel supported and trained SPLA forces and southern Sudanese for decades through Uganda with Kenyan knowledge. Obviously, the Darfur rebels had to recieve weapons, money, etc. from somewhere.

But again, There are world powers at play in Darfur, Chad, Kenya, throughout Africa, vying for resources and influence. (There are several 1000 French troops in Chad as well as 2 major French air bases)

Is increased American influence a solution?

Why should I trust America with its Neo Con led American foreign policy agenda? John Mc Cain has said "there will be more wars" and Obama said he will authorize invading Pakistan or any other country to catch Al Qaida. Mc Cain even joked about bombing Iran. Hillary too looks more like Lieberman in her voting.

These are words of imperialists and future American imperial foreign policies. Not to mention the new AFRICOM, set to be a BONANZA and JACK POT for American military contractors, where 100s of billions (why not a trillion?) in US tax dollars will go to US military contractors for all kinds of development programs in Africa with shady backroom deals, negligent oversight, and superficial accountability which the American public will know little to nothing about.

Quite frankly, there are new forces within the Muslim world which seek to revive nobility and righteousness in governance FREE of foreign interference, LIBERATED from foreign occupation and usurpation. Bashir, his generals, and the Janjaweed must be brought to justice by the Sudanese and Muslim world, not by the International European Court of World Domination and Suppression of Coloreds & Islam Masquerading as Justice.

So it is American interference and usurpation that keeps the muslim worlds antiquated system of nobility? and values? from doing what?

America, like every other country around the world, has paid for every drop of oil pumped from middle eastern wells. America sells and buys and just because it stays ahead of technology it can do so at a slight profit. That has translated into better education, healthcare and further innovation. Just because the oil producing kingdoms have squandered their profits among a very few powerful groups it isn't Americas fault. Binladen is right about one thing, the Saudi rulers are the controlers of Saudi people. Thats it and America has no issue with any nonviolent nation.

Americans do not like being the target of the hatred of the poor from Islamic nations. Its a nice way to divert attention away from the truth but does nothing to independantly solve the problems they face and in fact contributes to such instability and humanitarian issues that they get sucked into these affairs and deceptions. Believe me, I'ld just as soon go toe to toe, no limitations, with any nation that attacks us until one side sues for peace or is wiped out. This going in with a light footprint so as to not upset feelings is BS. It may save lives but they are not American lives.

Next time you bad mouth American foreign policy just remember who is providing your medicine, transportation and assorted technologies that the people of these oppressive countries really want access to. Then look at who is selling them guns, bombs and death, it isn't America .

The old, throw in enough guns to make it a fair fight ? Isn't that how BinLaden and Saddam started out? And you differentiate Darfur from Iraqs' prospects how? Iraqis are at least well educated compared to the occupants of Darfur. They could govern themselves any time they are ready to stop religious vendettas and get on with building a progressive nation.

Apen Exclaimed:

"Next time you bad mouth American foreign policy just remember who is providing your medicine, transportation and assorted technologies that the people of these oppressive countries really want access to. Then look at who is selling them guns, bombs and death, it isn't America

The old, throw in enough guns to make it a fair fight ? Isn't that how BinLaden and Saddam started out? And you differentiate Darfur from Iraqs' prospects how? Iraqis are at least well educated compared to the occupants of Darfur. They could govern themselves any time they are ready to stop religious vendettas and get on with building a progressive nation." I respond: Apen, I assume you are a mature adult who is beyond the need of schooling that a younger niave manchild might require regarding American foreign policy. Thus, read Oren's book and The Game of Nations by Miles Copeland. I suggest Pentagon: House of War by James Carroll in order to put American foreign policy in its military context. All 3 are written by Americans, Oren has dual Israeli- American citizenship. None of them are leftwingers or Muslims. Together, the 3 books are probably 2250 pages, but well worth the price considering that a graduate degree in international relations is going for around 50K. That being aside, I also assume you are not referring to me personally, but to the trade relations between the Muslim world and America. America's largest exports: agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%, industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%, capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%, consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0% (2003).
The EU, Canada, Japan remain America's largest trade partners. Of the capital goods, military technology is the most lucrative export. Here is a breakdown of US exports to Egypt , the largest Middle East nation. Egypt-US bilateral trade is only $5.6 billion in 2006. Egypt produces most of its own medicines, but still imports capital goods and consumer goods. In 2005, American companies had $4.8 billion invested in Egypt. Egyptian CHOICE to import American agricultural goods is based largely on politics, NOT the need for America. Nonetheless, America is the main importer to Egypt at 11.4%, next is China at 8.3 %. Egypt exports first to Italy at 12.1%, then America at 11.3%. Egypt imports from America include: wheat, grains, cotton. Egypt imports American cotton eventhough cotton is one of Egypt's main crops. But it also has niche economic market of textile production for EU And America. It is quite concievable that Egypt could get grain, wheat, cotton from the EU or China and replace American imports. However, other forces are at work. Here is a link revealing Egypt's military industry. Notice how America has reshaped Egypt's military industry since the 1980s: <link> A quote showing how America props up Egypt's military, ergo its dictatorship under Mubarak who has ruled by martial law for over 25 years. "From the Camp David peace accords in 1978 until 2000 (the latest year for which figures are available), the United States has subsidized Egypt's armed forces with over $38 billion worth of aid. Egypt receives about $2 billion annually--$1.3 billion in foreign military financing and about $815 million in economic support fund assistance --making it the second largest regular recipient of conventional U.S. military and economic aid, after Israel. In 1990, the United States also forgave $7.1 billion in past Egyptian military debt in return for Egypt's support of Operation Desert Shield. In addition, Egypt receives excess defense articles worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the Pentagon" <link> Here is a an article indicating how Mubarak is making his martial rule permanent. <link> It may be noticed that the link is to an article from a socialist website. However, there are no articles from NYTimes, NYPost, WaPo, WaTimes, etc about Egypt's martial law, ecspecially any as indepth.

A more mature comprehension of American relations with the Middle Eastern nations can be nurtured by reading Faith, Power, Fantasy by M Oren. My conscience compels me to speak against American foreign policy because I am both an American citizen AND a Muslim.

It is highly incorrect to assume all that is America is unapproachable, beyond acountability, beyond judgement. There are far too many indications that American elements: businesses, private groups, elite industries, political operatives, etc. have shaped American foreign policy to be far removed from the sentiments, beliefs, and ideas of the average American. I invite you to examine these links and my argument.

Egypt is an interesting place. If you look back to 1981 when radicals assassinated Sadat you will find why American aid is flowing toward the current Egyptian establishment. While being a dictator he is also beholden to world trade for popularity. Too far right or left and the trade balance changes. The trade balance has been kept fairly neutral since the problem in the Sinai is one of international importance as it involves trade. We all know what happens to a trade corridor when it is open to disruption for profit or power.

There is no future in the perversion of the Muslim faith. Not in Egypt or Iran or Syria or Lebanon and especially Gaza. Most scholars agree that intolerance and sexist abuse has no place in any religion or government. Also interesting is the fact that even the Wahabbi sect of Suadi gave BinLaden the boot for being too extreme. Unfortunately the failure of religion to prevent the rise to power of corrupt leaders, who have more to gain by diminishing their subjects than seeing them prosper, has been proven by history. Even today we see the oppression going on in Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, the Saudi kingdom and sad to say again, Turkey. Progress in countries that have moderated has been proof that there is a positive outcome in not being suspect of the world traders but to be in the game with respect and equality.

Apen:

Egypt is an interesting place. If you look back to 1981 when radicals assassinated Sadat you will find why American aid is flowing toward the current Egyptian establishment. While being a dictator he is also beholden to world trade for popularity. Too far right or left and the trade balance changes. The trade balance has been kept fairly neutral since the problem in the Sinai is one of international importance as it involves trade. We all know what happens to a trade corridor when it is open to disruption for profit or power.

Radical American terrorists assasinated 2 American presidents and have tried to assasinate many others, including a rightwing American suicide terrorist flying his plane into the White House to kill Clinton in the 1994 <link> . So the mere occur of an assasination can be turned on its head any which way.

The Sinai is Egyptian land and sea, period. It doesn't matter what anyone in the world thinks of it, at least in theory. Its like the world having a say on the Port of New Orleans or Chesapeake Bay- inconcievable for Americans to consider today, but both were once open to foreign interests and intervention.

In practicality, empire's invade, overthrow, conquer, and set up puppets as it suits them. Egypt IS interesting because it has been a pawn of European imperialism and then American imperialism off and on since Napoleon. I assume you realize he was the first to desire to construct and control a Suez canal. And if you read Oren's encyclopedic book, you may see as American greed and desire for economic domination increases, so does its imperialism. Its actually quite Machiavellian. Sadat is one of the original Free Officers of the Free Officers Movement that the CIA selected and helped overthrow the British backed King Farouk. Again, my references would be Oren's book:

http://www.michaeloren.com/

and Miles Copeland's Game of Nations referenced at this site:

<link>

Apen:

There is no future in the perversion of the Muslim faith. Not in Egypt or Iran or Syria or Lebanon and especially Gaza. Most scholars agree that intolerance and sexist abuse has no place in any religion or government. Also interesting is the fact that even the Wahabbi sect of Suadi gave BinLaden the boot for being too extreme. Unfortunately the failure of religion to prevent the rise to power of corrupt leaders, who have more to gain by diminishing their subjects than seeing them prosper, has been proven by history. Even today we see the oppression going on in Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, the Saudi kingdom and sad to say again, Turkey. Progress in countries that have moderated has been proof that there is a positive outcome in not being suspect of the world traders but to be in the game with respect and equality.

Please show how Islam is the cause of oppression in the countries you listed. I and many other Muslims are the first to condemn the deplorable conditions and oppression of the Muslim world, starting with Saudi Arabia. But while you may think the oppression in Saudia is reserved only for women and criminal punishment, many realize the oppression is the national monarchy itself, with its artificial borders and rejection of immigration eventhough Islam welcomes refugees and the the poor. Oil wealth is doled out to 'wealthy citizens' to placate Saudi tribes when according to Islam, all Muslims should be welcomed to live in Arabia and its wealth should be distributed to the poor and needy first. So as you might say 'perversion of the Muslim faith' is untenable and unacceptable, I agree. And I invite you to study Islam as its supposed to be practiced as a functioning, viable state.

As for stopping corrupt rulers from taking power, religion as you percieve it is inept. Yet Islam is more than just a "religion" per se. To no surprise, the Muslim regimes of today all have religious figures who 'religiously' rule over their people and justify their oppression. Nonetheless, Islam includes an ideological way of life which includes both an economic system and a political system and rejects the oppression of today. Indeed, both systems and the ideological way of life were functioning in an ideological manner for nearly 1000 years with variations therein. Even the application of checks and balances and adoption of principles of accountability, transparency, responsibility, representation were taught, practiced, and advanced by the Prophet Muhammad (saaw) himself within the framework of Islam. This is may be new to you, but it was not new to the founding fathers of America nor to the political thinkers and intellectuals of Europe who developed the modern concepts of democracy and the Enlightenment.

The "Game of Nations" is, or better, was a single scenario possibly used by a single administration in asessing the middle east. However, the cabinet of each administration is quite different and uses a host of information to make decisions which are dynamic as well. This Bush administration has been less than candid with the public as to why the dynamic has stalled and attracted the ire of the American public as well as foreigners. I have come to the conclusion he is using world opinion to drive his agenda in congress which you know is controlled by the democratic party. The same party that decries the "bad american policy" is what is at the root of it. It is easy to be misled by the press and the political parties PR campaigns. If I were a foreigner I'ld be afraid of the foreign policy the democrats will put in place. They have espoused an isolationist program which will cut trade deficits and immigration alright but will send unstable economies into a crash. They do not care about becoming part of a world economy that globally accepts responsibility for its role in the welfare of all people from all nations. That last scenario is a trial by fire neccessity in this day and age.

" And I invite you to study Islam as its supposed to be practiced as a functioning, viable state."

I have read quite a lot of the history of Islam and Muhammeds' life as translated in three dialects such that the meanings can be more precisely ascertained in english.

As near as I can see, Islam is just like any early form of governing, very basic, however Mohammed certainly had his own interpretations that made it useful to his particular ambitions. That said, the Persians also have theirs. Altogether, I find no real proactive form of Islam if it goes beyond its earliest versions which are open to Islamic scholars to forge ahead on more complex issues. For example, Iran has banned dogs claiming it is a matter of cleanliness. Noting that a dog was the only animal ever accepted into heaven, one must wonder if there is a public health concern in Iran or it is simply the Ayatollah letting the people know he is the supreme ruler of the people. Either way that form of leadership is not popular anywhere and it is seen as oppression everywhere.

That brings me to answer your question of how is Islam oppressive in the countries I listed. First, if you have to ask you are not interested in the UN and the fact that human rights are its primary concern world wide.

Anything that discriminates, denies equality to, a woman is sexist. I have read of Muhammeds life that he had a practice of favoritism but when challenged he accounted for it as a prophet would, ascribing it to a vision in some form. Women absolutely are the sufferers in todays scheme of Islam. Any reference to Sharia law and the entire set of laws follows at a pace. There is no reformation of law only limited application of it in so called moderate scenarios. Those are where imminent uprisings might undermine control.

History is rife with scenes where internal strife has changed peoples government and while the non Mulsim world has built governments based on past mistakes, Islamic nations always return to the basics and try again. That would be like the US breaking from Britain, a monarchy at the time, and starting over with a Greek democracy and hoping to end with a republic. I also note that most benevolent monarchies have deferred to a democratic form of governing over time or after revolt. I see reform in the middle east in the past fifty years but not due to the benevolence of any of its religious leadership. Take Turkey for example, a democracy of sorts with military oversight of the popular government such that Islam does not gain control of the public interests. In other words Islamic law is not democratic in any form and is primarily through removing the freedom of choice from all .

After baathism , the nazi party of Islam, Saddam and his protege' Ayman Zawahri have presented Islam with a problem, if these people represent what good will and peace are in store for the west then why trust the religion that produced them. Just like Kennedy, being catholic and thus not trusted to defer to the Vatican for advice over the people of a constitutionally controlled government. Yes the church has been the root cause of some of the worlds most horrible atrocities but it is not alone among religions having done so. Thats exactly why our constitution prevents legislation favoring any religion. I admit that Bush has found ways around that by authorizing federal agencies to spend monies supporting certain religious views, creationism being his biggest blunder. You can go to the grand canyon, pick up a federally funded brochure telling you that what you are looking at all happened in 6000 years through creationism however it is scientiffically dated to about 6 million. A great example where a religion fails the test of reality and a president (or his wife). Believe me, every non creationist American bristles at that fact however we tolerate these blunders more for their value as a spectacle of ignorance than religious acceptance. We laugh it off. No one is perfect and we all may have odd things about us but we are all supposed to learn from our life experiences. Mr Bush obviously has lived long yet not learned a lot in science or history class. That list is longer.

=>just remember who is providing your medicine (1), transportation (2) and assorted technologies (3) that the people of these oppressive countries really want access to. Then look at who is selling them guns, bombs and death, it isn't America.

What do you think about Iraqi and Afghani civilians? Let's examine your product, Painful Apen.

1 (Medicine): An aspirin pill in one hand and a bomb in the other!

Isn't it that USA is supplying too many surgeons and mountains of medical equipments?

2 (Transportation): armoured vehicles and apaches helicopters for the US army guys and Mercedes Benz cars dragged by mules for Afghani civil guys on the other side.

3 (Assorted technologies): used in abughrib, Tora bora and in Star-trek film?

Conclusion: USA resembles amazingly a whore! She sells it and still has it.

Opium, toyota pickup trucks and drug money. Ring a bell?

Thats the economic and healthcare plan the taliban offered offer the Afghani.

Small wonder the addicts to the drug get ticked off messing with their crops.