Wednesday, August 08, 2007

The Foundation For Operation Darfur Freedom

That, at least, is how I interpret this latest chapter in the UN's floundering over what to do about the ongoing Sudanese genocide:

Sudan will have to accept non-African troops in a U.N.-authorized peacekeeping force for Darfur or face the prospect of new United Nations sanctions, a senior U.S. official said Tuesday.

Although efforts will be made to ensure that Africa contributes a large percentage of the 26,000-strong mission, the continent does not have enough trained soldiers to fully staff the force and Sudan will be penalized unless it drops objections to non-African participation, said Andrew Natsios, the U.S. special envoy for Sudan. ...

The Sudanese government is adamantly opposed to non-Africans playing any major role in the hybrid U.N.-African Union operation that was authorized by the U.N. Security Council on July 31 and will be made up of 20,000 peacekeepers and 6,000 civilian police.

Disagreements over the composition of the mission were a major reason the authorization was delayed for months despite mounting pressure on Khartoum to accept it to help end nearly four years of internal conflict in which more than 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been displaced.

Can we have a reality check here? Even if this 26,000-man African "peacekeeping force" (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) could be deployed, it couldn't possibly stop the Islamist government's onslaught against its Christian minority. And that's if it was inclined to do so; UN "peacekeeping" missions are universally useless exercises of pious failure, futile, empty symbolism, and pacifist muscle-flexing akin to Tom Green entering himself in the Mr. Universe competition. And, in the case of African "peacekeepers," they've usually been more interested in "Jungle Fever" instead.

I think it's safe to say that bringing in "peacekeepers" from Muslim countries, which will inevitably be sympathetic to the Islamist regime in Khartoum if, for no other reason, than to avoid inflaming their own Islamist factions back home, will not make any "peacekeeping force" that does end up going in any more effective.

No, there is one long-term purpose for this UN Security Council resolution: to set the stage for the next act of American liberal military aggression under America's next left-wing generalissimo, Hillary Rodham: the U.S. invasion of Sudan, a country with no strategic resources and where no U.S. vital interests are at stake. Just like her husband's unprovoked attack on Serbia a decade ago.

What's that you say? We'll be fighting Islamic Fundamentalists? Well, yes, I guess that's true; but we're already doing so in Iraq, which is awash in strategic resources, geostrategic war importance, and the paramount U.S. national security interest, the defeat of al Qaeda and Iran. And the left wants to run Sudan, where none of those justifications are present.

How President Rodham will make the case for intervening in Sudan after fleeing the enemy in Iraq is anybody's guess, other than that it'll be so brazen I just might end up putting a brick through my television.

At least this time, the "genocide" is real.

UPDATE: And so are Mrs. Clinton's (and her eventual running mate's) fundraising connections with....the Islamist government of Sudan.

Figures, doesn't it?