Would the U.S. be doing more in Darfur if it weren't for Iraq/Afghanistan?

[Elendil's Heir]

Early in his administration, President Bush famously wrote "Not on my watch" on a memo about the troubles in Darfur. Since late 2001, though, the U.S. military has been kinda busy in Afghanistan and then Iraq. Still is, of course. Given Bush's own inclinations, and the interest by many in the Religious Right in the Darfur situation, would we have intervened militarily in Darfur by now had it not been for 9-11 and its aftermath? How and to what extent? Would it have made any difference?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Early in his administration, President Bush famously wrote "Not on my watch" on a memo about the troubles in Darfur. Since late 2001, though, the U.S. military has been kinda busy in Afghanistan and then Iraq. Still is, of course. Given Bush's own inclinations, and the interest by many in the Religious Right in the Darfur situation, would we have intervened militarily in Darfur by now had it not been for 9-11 and its aftermath?

I doubt it. Bush is all talk and no substance when it comes to actually doing anything useful. He'd TALK more about doing something, but the most he'd do is set up some impressive sounding agenda and not bother to fund it; that's his pattern.

It's not like he actually cares about the welfare of anyone but his fellow rich white conservative Christian men, after all.

[Punoqllads]

No, we wouldn't. The last time we sent military force into Africa to protect folks, it was Somalia. That didn't turn out so well. Unless you can find a way to show that it would directly affect US interests, you'll have a hard time selling US military intervention anywhere in Africa to Congress.

[HubZilla]

Originally Posted by Punoqllads

No, we wouldn't. The last time we sent military force into Africa to protect folks, it was Somalia. That didn't turn out so well. Unless you can find a way to show that it would directly affect US interests, you'll have a hard time selling US military intervention anywhere in Africa to Congress.

I think Somalia was also the reason we didn't intervene in Rwanda.

[Renob]

The only time the U.S. military gets involved in a conflict is if there is a U.S. national interest involved. While the situation in Darfur is tragic, there is no national interest involved. It is not the job of the U.S. military to punish bad men or stop bad things from happening. Even without Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no way the U.S. would be inolved militarily in Darfur. The Sudan simply isn't strategically important to the U.S.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Renob

The only time the U.S. military gets involved in a conflict is if there is a U.S. national interest involved.

What U.S. national interest motivated our interventions in Yugoslavia or Somalia?

[Renob]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What U.S. national interest motivated our interventions in Yugoslavia or Somalia?

Yugoslavia, certainly. Conflicts in the Balkans have proven throughout European history to be a dangerous thing. The U.S. definitely has good reason to want that region not to be at war or have a dangerous tyrant operating there, threatening his neighbors.

The Somalia intervention was under the auspices of the U.N., although I do admit I can see no other reason to intervene except for humanitarian reasons. You may have me there.

[clairobscur]

I don't know specifically about the USA and Darfur, but generally speaking, the concept of interventionism on humanitarian basis was gaining a lot of ground during the 90s in many venues. The war in Irak and its subsequent failure all but killed this evolution.

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

I don't know specifically about the USA and Darfur, but generally speaking, the concept of interventionism on humanitarian basis was gaining a lot of ground during the 90s in many venues. The war in Irak and its subsequent failure all but killed this evolution.

Just not in the United States. The Canadian General in charge in Rwanda saw the genocide coming, and begged the UN for an intervention. It would have required a remarkably low number of troops, because the people in Rwanda were not well armed (a lot of the genocidal killings were carried out with machetes). He failed to get UN help - primarily due to obstructionism from the Clinton administration and Madelaine Albright.

And anyway, you have it backwards. Aid and support for Africa went nowhere under the Clinton administration. Funding levels for African aid were flat throughout the 80's and 90's. It was Bush who changed it.

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Bush is all talk and no substance when it comes to actually doing anything useful. He'd TALK more about doing something, but the most he'd do is set up some impressive sounding agenda and not bother to fund it; that's his pattern.

Do you ever fact-check the stuff you say? Bush has tripled U.S. humanitarian aid to Africa, and is about to double it again. Spending on disease control in the third world has increased under the Bush administration by a factor of ten. Bush has also pledged 15 billion more to fight AIDS and malaria.

You might want to read what Bob Geldof and Bono, no friends of the administration overall, have to say about it:

Washington -- President Bush is not a rock star or a producer but he has used the power of his presidency to aid Africans beset by the seemingly intractable challenges of poverty and disease more than anyone on the planet, according to two celebrity activists who are dedicated to keeping Africa's plight in the forefront of world attention.

"[Bush] has actually done more than any American president for Africa," British producer Bob Geldof, who is the leading organizer of the "Live 8" concerts that are being held worldwide on July 2 to raise awareness of Africa's development needs, told Time Magazine recently.

Bono, lead singer of the Irish band U2 and longtime activist for aid to Africa, echoed Geldof’s praise for President Bush as he told an American television interviewer June 26, "[Bush] has already doubled and tripled aid to Africa .… I think he has done an incredible job, his administration, on AIDS. 250,000 Africans are on anti-viral drugs; they literally owe their lives to America."

As for an overall legacy, Bono said of Bush: "If he, though, in his second term, is as bold in his commitments to Africa as he was in the first term, he indeed deserves a place in history in turning the fate of that continent around."

Government statistics indicate that American assistance to Africa -- on all levels, private sector as well as government -- are at an all-time high reflecting an increased awareness of the continent's needs by the president who pledged more funding, especially to combat HIV/AIDS, during a trip to the continent in July 2003.

These are not just promises and talk. This is money and aid already delivered. And Bush did indeed continue providing more aid in his second term - he recently signed a 1 billion dollar aid and development plan with Kenya, for example.

There's lots of stuff to criticise Bush for. But give him credit where it's due. He's done more for Africa than any president in history.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Renob

Yugoslavia, certainly. Conflicts in the Balkans have proven throughout European history to be a dangerous thing. The U.S. definitely has good reason to want that region not to be at war or have a dangerous tyrant operating there, threatening his neighbors.

The Somalia intervention was under the auspices of the U.N., although I do admit I can see no other reason to intervene except for humanitarian reasons. You may have me there.

While the principal motive for intervention in Darfur would be humanitarian, one could make an argument that it's against our national interest to allow genocide, or anything massively disruptive of a normal society and economy, to go on in an oil-producing country such as Sudan.

[Renob]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

There's lots of stuff to criticise Bush for. But give him credit where it's due. He's done more for Africa than any president in history.

He may have directed that more taxpayer money gets spent for "aid" in Africa. Whether this aid actually does any good, however, is another question. Too often people assume that because aid is well-intentioned that is all that is important. There is little evidence that foreign aid actually does much good.

[Sam Stone]

Hey, I'm just using the standards set up to evaluate these things - money. We can debate all day long whether or not aid for Africa helps or hurts them in the long run, but the fact is, Bush has put his money where his mouth was. He promised to provide more aid to Africa and the third world, and he's done that in spades. More so than any other U.S. president, ever. The left, which measures such things in dollars, should be heaping praise on him for this as Geldof and Bono do. Too bad others are so blinded by partisanship that they refuse to even acknowledge basic facts.

[Renob]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Hey, I'm just using the standards set up to evaluate these things - money. We can debate all day long whether or not aid for Africa helps or hurts them in the long run, but the fact is, Bush has put his money where his mouth was. He promised to provide more aid to Africa and the third world, and he's done that in spades. More so than any other U.S. president, ever. The left, which measures such things in dollars, should be heaping praise on him for this as Geldof and Bono do. Too bad others are so blinded by partisanship that they refuse to even acknowledge basic facts.

I know what you are saying. Many liberals seem to think that "money=results" in things like education and foreign aid, so I think it's fine to use this type of standard when discussing it with them. But it really does avoid the question of whether or not our efforts are actually doing anything productive. But I guess that question is avoided with pretty much every government program.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Just not in the United States.

And anyway, you have it backwards. Aid and support for Africa went nowhere under the Clinton administration. Funding levels for African aid were flat throughout the 80's and 90's. It was Bush who changed it.

Hmmm..... I stated that I wasn't referring specifically to the United States. And I wasn't thinking about aid. I rather referred to the concept of interventions (including militarily) into the issues of independent countries on humanitarian ground becoming apparently more palatable, gaining support and being much discussed in diplomatic circles, by NGOs, by governments, etc... during the years preceding the invasion of Iraq. And this evolution being stopped dead by this conflict.

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

Hmmm..... I stated that I wasn't referring specifically to the United States. And I wasn't thinking about aid. I rather referred to the concept of interventions (including militarily) into the issues of independent countries on humanitarian ground becoming apparently more palatable, gaining support and being much discussed in diplomatic circles, by NGOs, by governments, etc... during the years preceding the invasion of Iraq. And this evolution being stopped dead by this conflict.

It seems to me that it was stopped dead long before that - as witness the complete failure to act in the case of the Rwandan genocide, which would have been relatively easy to prevent and for which the UN had plenty of warning. The Clinton administration also failed to get UN authorization for military intervention in Kosovo.

[marshmallow]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What U.S. national interest motivated our interventions in Yugoslavia or Somalia?

Camp Bondsteel is a nice trinket.

[even sven]

Bush has done a lot for Africa, and for the most part the people I knew in Africa recognized it. I'm not sure if it is Bush or if it is the Bill Clinton foundation who funded this, but I personally know people who's lives have been saved by free anti-retroviral drugs. I know people who's kids now get to have a mother thanks to this miracle. Anyone working in development recognizes that most aid is a double edge sword and foreign aid efforts have led to some terrible results. But sometimes it does some real, measurable good.

About Darfur, the media portrays this conflict of a case of "those black people can't stop killing each other" and painting it as a story about ethnic conflict and tribalism.

The truth is that it is about oil and involves world powers- it has very, very little to do with the people who are actually fighting. To get involved is to start a very big fight with some people we don't want to take on. Africa is the new Middle East, and America is the last one to notice.