Not so suddenly Sudan

Here's a question I've yet to see the media ask: If we invaded Iraq to liberate its people from the fear of their bodies being used as filler for mass graves, why aren't we in Sudan right now?

I realize the query contains a false premise since we didn't actually attack Iraq to free its people. According to President Bush, we went in to eliminate the dire threat to the U.S. posed by Saddam Hussein's huge stockpiles of terrible weapons. None have been found, of course, so the ex post facto justifications given for the affair have become to provide liberty and democracy for the Iraqi people (never mind they didn't exactly ask us for them). And also, of course, to assure Iraqis of no more mass exterminations, although this activity is happening right now in Sudan, where Arab militias allegedly backed by the government have been rampaging for some time against the country's black Africans in the Darfur region. Most reports estimate the death toll at 30,000 already. Approximately one million civilians have left their homes to try to escape the violence, and over two million Sudanese need immediate assistance of one kind or another.

Let's talk, then, about "mass graves" justifying intervention. Not to make light of a tragic situation, but, really, what is the expiration date for such expirations? This is another germane question that has gone unasked by the media. Had journalists bothered to inquire (or even spend a couple of minutes on the Internet), they would have discovered that the bulk of Hussein's butchery occurred mainly in the late 1980s during the Anfal campaign (when he was still a U.S. ally) and then again after the 1991 uprising following Gulf War I. In other words, the last major episode was well over a decade ago. Obviously, this doesn't diminish in the least Hussein's diabolical brutality. But even if we were to suspend disbelief and allow the Bush administration Iraq war hawks the immense benefit of the doubt and say, "OK. Stopping Hussein's mass murders, even though they'd already stopped, was a great humanitarian gesture on our part and sets a wonderful precedent," then the question must be: "When do we sail for Sudan?"

Whenever genocide or the possibility of same rears its ugly head anywhere, swift intervention is needed. The U.N. is an invaluable organization in many ways, but unfortunately, it has responded to the Sudan crisis in hand-wringing fashion by entering into a toothless agreement with Sudan's leaders, giving them 30 days as of August 10 to provide refuges for the displaced Africans. President Bush had no problem bucking the U.N. to invade Iraq and reminds us constantly that no more mass graves will be filled there (future Iraqi deaths caused by ongoing U.S. military operations and discarded depleted-uranium shells notwithstanding). So he should have no second thoughts about thumbing his nose at the world body now and intervening to stop the slaughter and mass relocations going on in Sudan at this moment. It seems like stating the obvious to say that if years-old genocidal acts are presented as sufficient reason to overthrow an offending government, it naturally follows that active genocide should be dealt with appropriately, too. But apparently this is not so obvious to everyone, because no one is bringing it up.

So we return to our original question: Why isn't the U.S. in Sudan? Because as long as it stays away, the more disaster is assured there, and the more it appears the reasons the U.S. went into Iraq were not so humanitarian, after all.

Copyright © 2005 Mark Drolette. All rights reserved.

Published originally in Online Journal.

Feel free, dear readers, to peruse and use these pieces as you will, copyrighted and non-copyrighted material alike, with one important exception: If the intent is to use an essay or essays for commercial purposes, please contact me first. I am not against capitalism, just crony capitalism!