On All Things Considered this evening, I heard that the French are considering moving troops into eastern Chad to stop the ongoing genocide in western Sudan – I’m not clear on the details.
In this GD thread (“Ask the Neo-con” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=268701) – I suggested that U.S. military intervention in Sudan, unlike our intervention in Iraq, might produce positive results because we could have a definite short-term exit strategy: Secure the independence of the South, make it clear we will not tolerate any attempt by the North to reconquer it, and then all we would need would be a token, temporary troop presence to make it stick. Tamerlane corrected me: The genocide now taking place in Western Darfur is unconnected to the civil war that has been going on for a decade between the Muslim North and secessionist Christian/pagan South.
Sounds like an Old West range war – if the group the cowboys were fighting were Indians and sodbusters rolled into one.
Which still leaves the question: Is this a situation which foreign intervention, by the U.S., France, or anybody else, could do anything to correct?
According to the Washington post, the Sudanese gov’t is doing more than just not interfereing with the militias. They are giving them air support and weapons.
I doubt Sudan would want war with the U.S. or even france. Also having even a few well armed peacekeepers does alot to deter a mob, especially if the peacekeepers are better armed and most importantly has the authority to use those arms