By Joe Maddens & Martha Heinemann Bixby
On Monday, we attended an event hosted by Bob Schieffer called “Foreign Policy Priorities for the Next Administration”. A respected panel of journalists and commentators outlined what they believe Obama’s foreign policy focuses should be, and answered questions from the audience.
The panelists were: Arnaud de Borchgrave of The Washington Times and UPI, Ed Henry, CNN’s Senior White House correspondent, William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and columnist for the New York Times, Clarence Page, editor of the Chicago Tribune and Susan Page, USA Today’s Washington Bureau Chief.
A surge in Afghanistan, Iran and a potential nuclear race in the Middle East, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, withdrawal from Iraq, and Pakistan were all immediately mentioned by the panelists.
During the question and answer period Joe asked the panel: “How much of a priority should be given to solving conflicts like DR Congo or Darfur? If those conflicts are not a top tier priority, what resources should be given to solving them?”
Ed Henry responded by noting that both Susan Rice and Joe Biden have talked a lot about Darfur and possible solutions, but he questioned whether their voices might be drowned out by other priorities or other vocal members of the administration.
William Kristol added that both Rice and Biden have proposed a no fly zone as a potential solution to Darfur. Kristol voiced his approval for this option, and said that neo-conservatives and ‘liberal interventionists’ would also support it.
Kristol emphasized that Obama’s response to other crises in Africa – such as the turmoil in Zimbabwe, and the problems caused by Somali pirates – would be a “test of where he is personally on humanitarian intervention”.
Finally, Susan Page noted that “he can’t do everything” and that Obama is disciplined and is good at making tough choices.
This last comment – and the entire event – drove home the importance of Save Darfur’s “Add Your Voice” campaign that asks Obama to make Darfur a priority from Day One of his presidency. There are a number of important international issues (as well as domestic ones!) that the new administration needs to address – but Darfur should not be forgotten. Click here to add your voice.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Save Darfur Coalition.
truthserum says:
ONLY LOGICAL SOLUTION TO DAFUR SUFFERING:
I have been saddend for years at the suffering in Dafur and frustrated that no one has found a solution to end it.
I have what I believe is the only LOGICAL and workable solution. It is not a very PC solution. It does respond to the many “human natures” that compound this problem and confound a solution.
I hope you will read this entire blog and not dismiss my solution at first glance.
THE SOLUTION?
Mercenaries. Yes, soldiers of fortune. How upsetting that may sound to you, please read on.
Why should mothers and fathers in France, England, USA or anywhere else support the idea of their sons and daughters being at risk of being maimed or killed in Dafur or any place that does not threaten their national interests? It’s a non-starter for them. They are appalled at the tragedy in Dafur, but it’s not worth harm to their loved ones.
This is at the heart of the UN’s inability to solve the problem militarily. And militarily it will be solved. Whether the aggressors continue their slaughter until their victims are subdued (dead, maimaed), or they are thrown back by a superior military force.
The aggressors will not be won over by diplomacy. They do not seek compromise, solutions. What we are witnessing is pure evil. Only military force will stop the carnage. Dedicated soldiers who will seek out and destroy the aggressors.
Yes, that is the only way. The aggressors can not be talked to. They have to be eliminated, sorry killed. In large numbers. Sorry, but to deny the truth in this fact is to stick your head in the sand and watch the butchery for the indefinite future. Until the innocents are eliminated, sorry killed.
OK it’s a bleak situation. WHY ARE MERCENARIES THE ANSWER?
1. It’s unreasonable to ask Mrs. Smith in England, or Mrs. Jones in Canada to sacrifice her son in the UN or in the British/Canadian army to persue and kill the aggressors, or even more absurd, to act as human shields between the aggressor and the slaughtered. She doesn’t have a dog in this fight. It’s not worth her child getting even injured. If you don’t get this point, don’t bother to read on.
2. Mercenaries are the best source to find EXPERIENCED, dedicated (gotta offer bonuses for success – gross, but this is human nature)soldiers to eliminate the agressors. Again, if you think the slaughter will end by negotations or talk, don’t bother to read on.
3. It can be done! It would take only a few thousand well armed, experienced and MOTIVATED (bonuses) soldier to quickly end the problem.
Unfortunately, there would also quickly be a whole lot of dead aggressors. Which is why the only solution that is logical and would work will never gain traction. Until caring people realize diplomacy, compromise, talks will never work with monsters like the aggressors in Dafur the slaughter will continue.
Good people are loathe to judge. They are reluctant to conclude that some monsters will not change and must be destroyed.
This is why Dafur will suffer until the innocents are destroyed.
Until good people have the courage to see evil, and name it as evil and seek it’s elimination (sorry, kill it) evil will hack off limbs, rape and kill with abandon and sick joy.
Mercenaries are the answer. At least they have the motivation to eliminate the evil. If we have the courage to identify it and order it’s destruction.