Darfur

Yesterday I was watching on CNN the interminable coverage of Korea’s nuclear test when I saw an accusatory commercial advocating Bush’s intervention in Darfur (Darfur conflict).

The hypocrisy of the people who demonize George W. Bush is astounding. They’ve slandered and libeled him for years on his intervention in Iraq, and now they do the same for his non-intervention in Darfur. What’s the difference between Darfur and Iraq? There has been genocide in both places.

The differences between them include that Darfur has no American national interest involved. There is no oil interest, and no danger to America from the conflict in Darfur. Darfur would be a purely humanitarian venture. I’m not against intervention in Darfur. In fact, I favor it. Yet the same left that screams about Darfur are the ones who have weakened Bush’s ability for any interventionist policy abroad. They have made it next to impossible for Bush to lead any sort of militaristic coalition anywhere, including against Iran, Korea, or even Darfur.

Why, in the left’s mind, is Darfur more worthy of intervention than Iraq was? It boils down to political correctness. The left will not tolerate the U.S. protecting oil resources. They will not cheer the U.S. fighting terrorism, nor ensuring America’s safety. These are not the left’s causes. The only genocide worth stopping is if it involves politically correct causes, devoid of any American national interest. We are not supposed to be the world’s policemen, except when it affects the downtrodden, the weak, the helpless, the politically and strategically insignificant.

Iraq didn’t qualify with any of these measures. Iraq had genocide. Who cares? Iraq controls a huge oil supply. Good reason not to intervene. Iraq was paying $25,000 to families of suicide bombers in Israel. Protecting Israel is not politically correct to the left. Iraq tried to assassinate George Bush senior. Again, who cares? Iraq was advocating violence against America and shooting at our planes. So? Iraq had used chemical weapons on its own people and intended on building a nuclear weapon. Yeah, yeah.

Now that the left has crippled Bush politically, how can they possibly expect him to intervene in Darfur? Bush is a politician. This is not a dirty word. Polls do matter. Elections determine power. World opinion does count. A weakened Bush can, at most, lend support to any international effort to intervene in Darfur. He cannot do more. It is unthinkable for the “warmongering” Bush to lead a military effort anywhere now, even in the left’s favorite places. You reap what you sow.


Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)