"I only wish that he would consider trying a tack that might actually draw some people to his cause, rather than alienating them with snark."

Well, I don't know how many of the links to past posts on Darfur that were in that post, and a number of my past posts, you clicked on or read, but likely perfectly reasonably few or none (obviously I don't expect anyone to sit down and go through them; I just make them available in case anyone does want to read any). But I did make dozens of posts on Darfur that were completely a-partisan or non-partisan -- I'd like to think that there's no major reason why Darfur should be a partisan issue for anyone who isn't simply a crazed partisan for its own sake.

But not many people often blog on Darfur, for a variety of reasons, good and bad, and so lately I've been frustrated, and I do think that most political bloggers (certainly not all) are locked into an obsessive fixation on President Bush, whether anti or pro, so that if a topic doesn't particularly relate to proving that Bush Is Satan or Bush Must Be Supported, it isn't a topic the huge number of bloggers locked into that mode will care about. So in that post, and a few others, I've experimented with the notion of trying to channel that obessiveness somewhere useful. It's probably futile, and as you say, it definitely has its downside; which likely brings it back to futile.

So, if you have any suggestions for better tacks, I'm all ears, and would eagerly welcome any suggestions that work.

As for things to be done in Darfur, there are no easy magic wands, but I've posted bunches and bunches and bunches of posts with steps that I think should be taken. I don't feel like reiterating them all in a blog comment at the moment, but there are plenty of things we could do that would be steps in the right direction, even though they're not going to be magic cure-alls.

The President speaking up again in recent days is certainly one such good thing. If he took to loudly speaking every week about Darfur, that alone would be one major good step. Then we could have a major envoy pounding on the Sudanese regime non-stop. And we could be pressuring the Europeans and the rest of the civilized world like mad. And organizing NATO to support troops to do peace-making, and finding other troops around the world to be boots on the ground, and supporting them heavily logistically, and with training and air power, and we could put in a no-fly zone over Darfur, and be very threatening to the Sudanese regime. For starters.

But, yeah, I take genocide pretty seriously. And that tends to make me sarcastic. Probably not the best mode, but I've never claimed to be a perfect person. I do feel pretty strongly that the world shouldn't stand by and let genocides happen. I think at the least we should make major efforts to stop it.

I didn't delve into your prior posts because it appeared that you listed all of them. With 20-odd posts all listed as 'prior posts on Darfur' there's no way for me to know which ones contain what. If you listed only one or two that you consider of greatest importance, or noted which applied to which aspect of Darfur, I know I would be more likely to look in more depth. When I just see a list of 20 links, I'm much less likely to go looking.

I'm not sure what would be the most effective method of drawing attention to Darfur. As I noted, I think that it is unlikely much substantive is going to be done about the situation; our military doesn't have the reach to to handle Darfur and Iraq simultaneously, and I don't think the politics would support it even if we did. And based on past experience, nobody else is going to put troops on the ground in numbers sufficient to change the calculus of the situation without U.S. support. As for being very threatening to the Sudan regime, are you willing to back that up by removing them? If not, then threatening them is a waste of time. If so, how are we going to pull that off, given the general reaction to regime change in Iraq?

I believe I understand your strong feelings regarding genocide. But that doesn't change the facts. Most people aren't willing to make major efforts to intervene, and until that calculus changes, governments will do what they've always done: cluck their tongues, shake their heads, and turn away. If you want to see that change, I think you've got to start by convincing people that it is in our interest to prevent this sort of thing, and I'm not sure how you can do that.

"Three, don’t forget to take a gratuitous swipe at some particularly hated group, in Gary’s case, libertarians, whom he snidely advises to at least donate to charity, even though that won’t help the people of Darfur. I guess that no crusade is worth having libertarians as allies for Gary."

Incidentally, among other errors in this statement:

a) I certainly don't "hate" libertarians; I have plenty of libertarian friends, and am in perfect agreement with lots of libertarian ideas; I also disagree with some other libertarian ideas.

b) I wasn't being in the least "snide." I don't know what other libertarian policy might help Darfur besides donating to private charity. If you can inform me of one, I shall gladly learn something I don't know, and shall keep it in mind for the future.

c) I'd be delighted to have libertarians as allies in calling for some form of governmental action on Darfur. Could you point to some libertarians who are doing this? I should be most pleased to have them as allies, just as I'm happy to have Senator Brownback and Christian evangelicals as allies on the issue of Darfur (and certain other issues, as well.

"I didn't delve into your prior posts because it appeared that you listed all of them."

Oh, by no means; I've written about Darfur in dozens of other posts. I only listed those that were entirely about Darfur.

"As I noted, I think that it is unlikely much substantive is going to be done about the situation; our military doesn't have the reach to to handle Darfur and Iraq simultaneously, and I don't think the politics would support it even if we did."

There is a long list of actions that people have been calling for for about two years now. Just purely off the top of my head, I've been calling for the President to speak out frequently and loudly about it (his statement last week was a good thing; I'd like him to say something like that every week until effective action happens to significantly interfere with the genocide in Darfur; I'm perfectly aware of the "realistic" limits to how often the President can speak on a matter, but I can't think of a more important issue than a genocide, and the fact is that nothing happens in our political system without pressure, so I have no problem making a slightly "extreme" or "unrealistic" demand, and seeing something somewhat lesser be the actual result); I'd like an immediate no-fly zone for Sudanese air power over Darfur, and us and others to enforce it. I'd like immediate action in the UN to authorize a UN peace-making force, though I agree that this is a matter of deep complexity fraught with grave danger that must not be done lightly or without a thorough public discussion of the risks involved (this point requires great elaboration, which is why I'm not going to go further into it in a passing blog comment). I'd like the highest-possible-level personal envoy of the President immediately appointed, and sent to Sudan to knock heads. And there's a significant list of other actions I've written about (all based on what far more knowledgeable people have called for and written about at great length for years now).

I certainly agree that the risk of all-out war with Sudan is grave if we push beyond certain points, and great caution regarding that danger needs to be exercised. But there are considerable numbers of steps that don't run much risk of pulling us in that far that should be taken before we need to settle whether we should go anywhere near that far.

"If you want to see that change, I think you've got to start by convincing people that it is in our interest to prevent this sort of thing, and I'm not sure how you can do that."

Again, I'm not going to write an essay in this comment, but I think that it's inherent to American ideals to oppose genocide, any genocide, up to and including at great cost to the United States of America. I don't think our ideals are consistent with doing otherwise, and I don't think we can possibly claim the moral high ground in the world that we desire to claim, and that our ideals call for, if we do not take such a consistent stance. Please note that "at great cost" does not mean "no matter the cost."

Meanwhile among things I said in my post and linked to:

Darfur Human Rights Watch page. What You Can Do. Donate To The Save Darfur Coalition here. Send e-postcard to President Bush here. Read about Rally To Stop Genocide -- April 30th -- D.C. here. Darfur Genocide.org here. Check everything out thoroughly for yourself, then see if there's something you might want to do.

For a few other things we can and should be doing, see also the Brownback-Obama dialogue in my post. I'll try to get back to you at some point with an up-to-date concise summary of What We Should Now Try To Do. That's a good idea for a post that I'll add to my endless list of such ideas, and I'll try to actually get to it in the near future.

"If you do not wish to wait for your comment to be approved, you can go to TypeKey to get a TypeKey registration and sign in as a registered user."

Incidentally, when I tried doing this, since I do have a TypeKey registration, the software then said that it wasn't configured to allow it. I mention this only in case you are unaware of it, not as any form of complaint.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: