Two Sides of the Same Coin

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Why is the invasion of one nation ok, and another not? I don't think that putting troops into Darfur is the same as invading Iraq, but I think they're a lot more similar that it seems most people do. Everyone (the popular media at least) bemoans our presence in Iraq and in the same paper or page bemoans our absence in Darfur. IMO we should be in neither. Or certainly if we should be in Darfur then everyone should shut the hell up about staying in Iraq.

It now seems to be consensus that if the US left Iraq at this time that the factions of Iraq (Sunni, Shia, and Kurd) would tear themselves apart in a bloody civil war. I'm guessing that hundreds of thousands would be killed before, probably, two ruthless theocratic dictators would emerge in an undeclared peace between Northwest and Southeast. It would be a horrific place (and that's not even considering what Turkey, Syria, and Iran would do should Iraq tear apart). That is, if the US pulls out.

Now balance this with Darfur where maybe tens of thousands will supposedly die if the US does not enter. (I say "supposedly" not to question that people will die, but that our presence will prevent it). By simple, if grotesque, math Iraq is more important than Darfur.

I don't think the US should be the police of the world. We should give aid where it can be used (and not abused), but we're not cops. I don't want our kids to be fighting someone else's battle. I think it was a horrific mistake to actually invade Iraq (the sword rattling before was great IMO - just not the follow-through). But we were the ones who stirred up that hornets nest so we need to be the ones to make it safe again. We didn't start Darfur, so we should not send our kids to die there.

CNN: Rally for Darfur