I posted on Patterico’s website last year about some my Personal Involvement in The OJ Simpson Case.

Patterico�s Pontifications � It�sa �New Low� for New York Times …
Mr. Patterico. My name is Mario G. Nitrini 111. I was Personally involved in The
OJ Simpson case. I read Your Post of Febuary 24th, 2004 about The OJ …
http://patterico.com/2005/05/21/3041/its-a-new-low-for-new-york-times-editors/ - Cached

Last night, I posted on His website:

Patterico�s Pontifications
Patterico on Ace�s and Goldstein�s �Hoist the Black Flag� Radio Show … I know
that Patterico�s Hiltzik posts have been all the rage lately, and rightly so …
http://patterico.com/ - Cached

on this Blog of his:

Hiltzik Suspension in the Media
Filed under: Dog Trainer, Hiltzik — Patterico @ 12:55 pm

and I WAS BANNED from his Website for telling the Truth. GOOD GRIEF!!!!!!

WHY???? The OJ Simpson Case, The Anthony Pellicano Federal Indictment, The Los Angeles Times’ Chuck Philips, The Notorious B.I.G. Federal Civil Lawsuit Case, The LAPD, The LADA, and More.

Patrick Frey (AKA) Patterico is Covering me up for……LOT’S

Mario G. Nitrini 111

as i posted at Oxblog, i was at the rally.

It was not the bash bush rally you imply. The principle concern was Darfur, and whats happening there. And yes, there were mentions of the UN, and Europe, and Russia and China.

But we are Americans, American voters. We have leverage, first and foremost, over our own govt. I believe that A. the admin has NOT made Darfur as much of a priority as it could. B. To the extent it has, it has been largely because of public pressure, which needs to be maintained and expanded. You may have more faith in this admin than I do.

Im not sure who disgusts me more, the lefties for whom a cause is only worthwhile if its a chance to bash bush, or the righties for whom its only worthwhile if its a chance to bash the UN or Islam.

I was there, as was most of the crowd, I think, because stopping the genocide is more important than bashing Bush OR the UN.

What do you guys propose we DO?

All the proposals I have seen are like the underpants gnomes:

1) Bush makes Darfur a priority
2) ?
3) no more janjaweed

Unless the US acts unilaterally in a big way, any action will involve other nations or organizations. The reason I am focusing on them is because they are the bottleneck, AFAIK.

I am criticizing Islamism/Islamofascism/Radical Islam/whateveryouwantocallit. I hope that's not identical with Islam. But it's Muslim-on-Muslim killing and before that it was Muslim-on-Christian/tribal religions killing and slavery.

I saw Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak yesterday. She quoted another Muslim reformer that "All Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim." Muslims who care about human rights know this. You don't support them by being mealy-mouthed about it.

The "we are Americans therefore we criticize America argument" doesn't work for me as a principle. We apply pressure where it will be most effective. If that's our own government, go ahead. But I have seen too many activists use that argument to avoid criticizing anyone else. (I say, Okay, to use your logic, then none of those antiwar protestors around the world should have criticized the US, right? Or criticize Israel? Then they have nothing to say.) I'm not saying you're doing that, but I meet up with that not infrequently.

So we apply pressure to Bush, who then does what to whom that he wasn't doing before? Tell me.

I admit to no small ammount of angst over this.

For 15 years, getting real attention paid to the Sudan was just about impossible. The only time I ever heard anyone talking about the Sudan it was various missionary groups asking people to pray, give, and write their senators. It almost never made the news and the silence coming out of Europe was deafening. At least the US took the moral if useless step of slapping sanctions on the Sudan. Useless, because nothing would have stopped the French from doing the Rwanda thing all over again, especially if it meant access to those oil fields the US discovered but found itself morally unable to exploit. My biggest objection to the Iraq war was I thought the Sudan was a more pressing priority. No one else, pro-war, anti-war, or anywhere in between seemed to think so.

Now suddenly, it's Darfur this and Darfur that as if any of these people gave a...as if any of these people actually cared. I think 90% of them think that its all about Darfur as if Darfur wasn't only a side show to the main massacare - now almost over. Two and a half million dead and millions more chased off thier lands, and now that 17 years have gone by and almost everyone is already dead and the Sudanese are practically running out of people to kill, only now is it a cause celebrity and suddenly 'progessives' are coming out of the woodwork claiming that they've always been behind doing, well something, they aren't really sure what, but something. Not you know, actually send in troops and kill some bad guys, but someone should do something. Like hold big parties.. I mean rallies, and engage in networking, babe watching, and impromptu theater. It's also freaking cathartic.

Meanwhile, Code Pink, Not in Our Name and all the usual suspects are already rallying the useful idiots in support of the Sudanese government, so that if we actually tried to do something, THEY could hold some parties, get rowdy, watch some babes, and hold some live action roleplaying and feel good about themselves.

Yehudit: If you are looking for the opposite extreme, this epistle from frontline ministries. I won't claim that it's an unbiased take on the situation (because it isn't), but it's interesting just for the contrast.

And bashing the UN? Part of the problem with the UN is that anything referred to it disappears into the maw of bureaucracy and national agendas and is never seen again. So do we ignore the UN? How do we get it to act? What do we want it to do?

None of the Sudanese I have seen at any of these rallies had anything good to say about the UN, and neither do the Iraqis, for that matter.

We would all be happy if the UN redeemed itself, but in the meantime genocide is continuing, so . . .

I would love to see a plan.

Let me tell you why there is no plan, and why there will never be a plan unless some US president is bold enough to say, "This will not stand, and I don't care what the political consequences are."

The reason why nothing has ever been done is that France, China, and Saudia Arabia are all allies of the Sudanese government and have vested economic and political interests in not only supporting the Sudanese government but seeing the genocide continue. That's a powerful trio and it makes any sort of policy under the auspices of the UN impossible. In fact, it makes just about any sort of international agreement impossible because between the three of them they can block just about any sort of multi-lateral action.

In my opinion, if you are thinking anything can be done except putting US boots on the ground, then I think you are fooling yourself.

Unfortunately, as was obvious to me when the Iraq war was proposed, it would mean with a 10 division army that we wouldn't have the troops to spare for about a decade - even if things had gone swimmingly. So better or wose, Bush has already made his mind up about what he thinks, "Can't stand", and its going to be up to the next President to make that bold decision.

Mark my words, come 2008 or so, if the SPLA starts making moves for independence, expect it to start all over again regardless of Kartoum's commitments. Don't be holding your breath for any US President to make this a priority.

But if the 'progressives' attention holds for more than 5 minutes, I don't see how a political coalition as broad as the far left and the far right can't set government policy if they really set thier mind to it. I just don't expect the 'progressives' to care for longer than they think it reflects badly on Republicans, to jump ship if it ever looks like someone's actually planning to do something, and sadly in all fairness, I don't expect the 'religious right' to have the same level of emotion on this issue when its just moslem on moslem violence taking place.

liberhawk: "... bash the UN ..."

We wouldn't want any gratuitous UN bashing, so help me out by explaining what the UN has done about Darfur - keeping in mind that things like Darfur are supposed to be the UN's first priority always.

Apart from the brave UN relief workers who are risking their lives with little or no protection as usual, the only force there is the small
African Union force sponsored by NATO (at Bush's urging) and if any force joins them it will probably be a NATO/European force (again urged by Bush). The UN is castrated by the pro-Islamist majority on the absurdly-named "Security Council" and can't even impose economic sanctions.

So when you blame Bush and defend the UN, I assume that this is an admission that only Bush can be efficacious, while the UN is as useless as a broken toilet.

Iraq trumped Darfur because Saddam + terrorists + nukes was going to happen if we didn't take him out. There's enough evidence of that. I think Bush made the right call.

I posted this on Kesher Talk and I got a comment from Pillage Idiot:

The reason people have no solution is that there are only two, one correct but impossible and one possible but incorrect.

The correct but impossible solution is to get all the militarily worthless countries in the world, like Canada, France, Germany, Belgium, etc., to take action against Sudan under UN auspices. It's impossible because it won't happen. The UN has an execrable record on stopping genocide -- which is about its only conceivably useful function -- and we should do away with it.

The possible but incorrect solution is David Adesnik's: send in the Marines. It's incorrect because we have to focus our use of the military on interventions in which the U.S. has a national security interest, and not just a humanitarian interest, no matter how strong. Humanitarian needs are why we have other countries and why those countries have militaries.

Liberalhawk,
given events of the past, there can be no almost such thing as "gratuitous" bashing of the United Nations. I mean, consider that even the UN's postage stamp collection has been looted.

celebrim: "I don't expect the 'religious right' to have the same level of emotion on this issue when its just moslem on moslem violence taking place."

Just "moslem on moslem violence"? The majority of victims and refugees are Christian or tribal religionists. The SPLA is mostly composed of Christians.

Christians have been objecting to the murder, rape, and enslavement of African Christians for a long time. Is this "level of emotion" just selfish group interest?

You characterize them as the "religious right". How DNC of you. The Christian interest in the Sudan is in fact international (as in Christian Solidarity International for example) and I don't know why they are right-wing, unless liberal Christians are unconcerned about genocide.

I wanted to add something about the mercenary solution, but I didn't have a link handy. But lo! Someone has written an article for me.
"As the international community dithers over Darfur, private military companies say they've got what it takes to stop the carnage, if only someone would hire them."

This is the third option after the two I quoted in my comment above.

Was that option aired at the rally? Somehow I doubt it . . . .

Perhaps the organizers should tell us the right number of troops in advance so they don't have to tell us later that we had too many or too few.

What? They only quarterback on Monday?

Glen: I hardly know where to begin.

"The majority of victims and refugees are Christian or tribal religionists."

Trying reading more closely what I write, 'k?

"The SPLA is mostly composed of Christians."

The SPLA isn't in the Darfur region. And surprise, surprise, the 'progressives' suddunly care about the Sudan when its not Christians getting enslaved, raped, murdered, bombed, tortured, and crucified.

"Christians have been objecting to the murder, rape, and enslavement of African Christians for a long time."

You are trying to tell me this???

"Is this "level of emotion" just selfish group interest?"

No. But on an emotional level it is in part a responce to a shared feeling of community, and it would represent a certain ammount of blindness not to see that. I believe that the church would object to a genocide going on anywhere, but its only human if most of its members express more emotion and feel more empathy when they feel that its suffering in an kindred group. It's alot harder to feel love and compassion for someone you aren't naturally dispossed to feel love and compassion for, but that doesn't mean that Christians wouldn't do it. I mean, that's what it's all about.

"You characterize them as the "religious right". How DNC of you."

This is actually kind of funny in a sad sort of way. Most people would characterize my own politics as 'religious right'. I'd hate to think that my faith is so vague and little known that I couldn't be convicted for it. My scare quotes around the label was to indicate that I didn't accept the label as accurate and descriptive for any number of reasons. I speak as one well inside the Christian community. From this vantage point, I feel qualified to speak with some small ammount of authority about the strengths and failings of the so called 'religious right', and so if I offer self-critical views I don't see why anyone should have a problem with that. It's done with a certain ammount of affection, even if I think that it would be a mistake to apply the label to me and I don't claim it for myself.

"The Christian interest in the Sudan is in fact international..."

Duh.

"...unless liberal Christians are unconcerned about genocide."

Terms like 'liberal Christians' and 'conservative Christians' are frought with danger, because the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are relative. They don't really have any meaning outside of the context of the particular noun that they are hanging on. I really wish people would stop using them, because they don't really tell you what people seem to think that they tell you and lots of people describe themselves with either word in a way contrary to the words meaning. Applied to Christians, 'liberal' and 'conservative' refer to particular debates over certain doctrinal issues specific to Christians, and they don't necessarily have any bearing on how that person feels about anything else or other political issues - except to the extent that 'values' politics in America tend to be wrapped up around or related to these debates.

As far as genocide goes, there is no 'liberal' or 'conservative' Christian position on genocide. I wouldn't expect that there would be much of a rift between Christians except perhaps the centuries old debates over 'just war' and the extent to which a Christian could 'render unto Caesar' violent service which arose when Christianity became something other than a marginalized religion. And even those are actually pretty settled debates, with the lines being pretty well drawn, and more marked by mutual respect between the factions than acrimony. For examples, see such movies as 'Gentle Persuasion', 'Sgt. York', etc. made back when Hollywood didn't find protraying Christians in a positive light objectionable.

The practicalities of stopping genocide basically boil down to invading with overwhelming force (whoever is doing the invading) and crushing the perpetrator’s will and ability to continue on with it. There is no touchy-feely, can’t we all be friends, “safe-zones”, international-observers, small task-force, etc., etc., way to do it. Winning is not good enough. You must also pacify.

Unfortunately (and ironically) many of the people (e.g., George Clooney) who are now trumpeting a call for action in Darfur are the very people who have made such a solution politically impossible.

Crushing the will and ability of entrenched perpetrators means killing lots of combatants while simultaneously inflicting such collateral damage on their infrastructure and populations that the notion of continuing on with genocide is no longer conceivable at any level, from the grassroots on up. Otherwise you just get periods of lull followed by sporadic bursts of violence (practise genocides, really) until the eye of the world is gone and the whole thing can flare up again. See the last 60 years of history in Rwanda and Burundi for examples of how that works.

MAYBE you can stop it in the short term by decapitating the current leadership of the genocide, but this does nothing to solve the underlying problems which led to the genocide in the first place. So unless you get really lucky – or install a dictatorship harsh enough to enforce the “peace” for long enough that passions and memories begin to fade (i.e., a really long time) – the killing is likely going to start up again at some point. Heck, the genocide in Rwanda took place in 1993 and -- thanks mainly to the French -- even though Kagame won decisively, enough of the genocidiares were able to melt away into the forest that they’re still killing Tutsis and generating fresh atrocities in eastern Zaire 16 years later.

But see, no Western government – “militarily useless” or not – can even consider partaking of such a solution. #1, it’s not in their national interests to do so. #2, even if they decided that the greater moral good was enough to justify the invasion, the nightly festival of destruction on TV coupled with the politically correct notion pervading so much of Western society that no culture is superior than another (so who are we to judge) coupled with the daily outcries of the No-Blood-For-Oil-capitalism-is-evil-peace-first crowd against Western colonialism and imperialism is enough to ensure no government would dare intervene in any substantive way in the first place. I mean, the fact that Saddam was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis was not enough to justify the invasion of Iraq for vast swaths of the American population, and that invasion WAS in the national interest of the United States. How long is that same crowd gonna support the "occupation of Sudan?"

From a political perspective, it simply ain’t worth it, because you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. At least if you don’t you also don’t have to weather the daily media firestorm and plummeting approval ratings connected with young marines coming home in body bags to stop a conflict that nobody understands in a region that 98% of the population couldn’t point to on a map of the world.

So, in the end you get what we’ve got in Darfur today, and what we’ve seen in too many other places yesterday: insufficient response in an untimely manner, alongside the occasional rally such as occurred the other day. The rallies are nice and all, but nice doesn’t stop the killing and the not-so-nice stuff required for that is simply beyond the pale thanks to George and -- I have no doubt whatsoever -- so many of the others who attended.

Like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, terror-supporting Islamist Sudan is one of our most important allies in the war against terrorism. That fact may be keeping us from taking any effective action. At least we're not giving them defense contracts.

Despite this 'alliance', the US has done more than any other nation to help the victims of genocide in the Sudan - and, unlike other nations we have no business ties in the area. However, like them, we have extensive ties with their friends, other terror-supporting slaveholding Gulf states. Our getting involved in the Sudan would probably offend them, and our government is willing to go to great lengths to avoid offending our valuable terror-supporting allies.

The Save Darfur activists probably won't accomplish much, but they will bring American attention to the effects of these alliances. When the Dubai ports deal was being discussed, most polls indicated that the majority of Americans believe that the UAE is not an ally. More than 75% of Americans believe that Saudi Arabia is not an ally. I'd guess that most aren't thrilled with the Sudan/US alliance. It's good to bring these issues to light.

An official, US-state sponored unilateral military action in Darfur would probably be opposed by the Chinese, the Russians and just about everyone else in the international community. That why I agree with Judith - non-pacifist international NGOs, sponsored by internationally based aid monies, are the best solution. Private security plans for defending the people in Darfur were discussed in the Boston Globe article and here.

Non-pacifist NGOs would be a solution to a lot of problems. Pacifist, UN-subservient NGOs have proven to be entirely ineffective in these conflicts.

In any case, our primary goal should be to avoid involving Chad or the French in the conflict. We don't want the 'operation Turqouise' French sparking up another Rwanda/Congo mess.

"The "we are Americans therefore we criticize America argument" doesn't work for me as a principle. We apply pressure where it will be most effective. If that's our own government, go ahead. But I have seen too many activists use that argument to avoid criticizing anyone else. (I say, Okay, to use your logic, then none of those antiwar protestors around the world should have criticized the US, right? Or criticize Israel? Then they have nothing to say.) I'm not saying you're doing that, but I meet up with that not infrequently.

So we apply pressure to Bush, who then does what to whom that he wasn't doing before? Tell me."

At the DC rally there was plenty of critiicsm aimed at others, including China, Russia, the EU, the AU, the Arab League. So not only am I not "doing that" but the various members of the Save Darfur coalition are not doing that either.

As for the UN, despite all the moaning here about Kofi Annan, the reality is that the UN is controlled by its membership, with the P5 exerting the most influence. The UNGA voted for anti-Israel resolutions cause the UNGA membes wanted them. The resolutions didnt pass the UNSC, cause the US vetoed them. There was no resolution supporting us in Iraq, cause the French and Russians and Chinese would have vetoed. There was no action in Rwanda, cause the French were against it, and the US admin, scared by Somalia, didnt push. Annan is no hero, and the UN may be bureaucratic, but that is of little importance in the world.

What COULD the US do its not already doing - President Bush could speak more assertively abou t it in public. We could discuss with the Europeans the prospect of using an EU force, and not quibble that its an EU force and not NATO. We could offer to provide direct US support to a UN force, not necessarily through NATO. We could agree to support having Sudanese war criminals tried at the ICC (in exchange for EU support for a force in Darfur). We could raise the issue with China, and give it more priority than the level of the Yuan. (perhaps weve already done that - one of the problems with your call for a laundry list of actions, and your implication that the admin is doing everything it can do, is that most diplomacy by its nature takes place in private, so we cant be sure what they are actually doing)

And not everything is admin action. There was also discussion of disinvesting from companies in Sudan, which some state pension funds are already doing.

"Perhaps the organizers should tell us the right number of troops in advance so they don't have to tell us later that we had too many or too few"

assuming that Sudan caves and allows a UN peacekeeping force, the number called for is about 20,000.

If we have to go in against the will of the Sudan govt, it would probably be larger, but not much. This is a rural area, with most of the population against the Khartoum govt. Its more like the intervention we did in '92 in Kurdistan than it is like Iraqi freedom.

If we were to occupy Khartoum it would take many more troops. But i dont think anyone is asking for that.

Yehudit:

Your underpants gnome syllogism:

"1) Bush makes Darfur a priority
2) ?
3) no more janjaweed"

is well received. I had the opportunity to see Paul Rusesabagina speak at my school, while he was on his publicity gala tour for his book (which donates 10% of profits to Rwandan charities of some sort). He was careful to emphasize that it was not stupid blind luck that kept him and his rich hotel patrons alive from the militarized mobs; it was love.

I swear to effing god that man stood in front of an auditorium of college students and told them all (most had likely seen Hotel Rwanda, One Day in April, Schindlers List etc) that genocide cannot be solved by violence; only love can solve genocide. The villages destroyed to the last grandma he saw when he was spirited out of the country? They obviously didn't have enough love to show the Hutus. Its also worth noting that love is another term for bribes of booze and money. It was the most ridiculous theater of the absurd event I've ever seen.

Those Sudanese dont have a snowball's chance in hell and thats just how it is. It would be bothersome if that wasn't how the world is, even when you swaddle it in dreamy American undergraduate blankies.

My $.02 on solving it? Setup a website that allows paypal donations; send in PMCs to not overrun or route but destroy the janjaweed militias. Anything less than that and you're hoping symbiosis with the tumor will keep it from metastasizing.

"Liberalhawk,
given events of the past, there can be no almost such thing as "gratuitous" bashing of the United Nations. I mean, consider that even the UN's postage stamp collection has been looted."

Look i dont MIND if you bash the UN. Just as I dont mind when lefties bash Bush. What I DO mind is when someone says they only want to go to a rally that focuses on the faults of the UN, or the faults of Bush. Shows me their priorities are NOT with stopping THIS genocide, now. (BTW i note Yehudit did go to rally in NY, or someone I think was her did, so im not putting her in that category)

I know you guys all love the idea of Mercs, but I dont think that is gonna work. How the hell is a private foundation gonna control mercs? And what will you do when their contract is up and the Janjaweed return? hell, how do you know the Sudan govt doesnt buy their loyalties?

Youre serious about this, you want national armies, with or without blue helmets. Unfortunately some folks here are gagging at the blue helmets more than they are worried about results.

"There is no touchy-feely, can’t we all be friends, “safe-zones”, international-observers, small task-force, etc., etc., way to do it. Winning is not good enough. You must also pacify"

two words - Iraqi Kurdistan.

The guy from Rwanda actually saved the lives of Rwandans. And people here, sitting safely behind their computers, actually think they no more stopping genocide. The chutzpah is overwhelming.

Liberalhawk,

While I think we'd certainly agree that much, much more needs to be done in Darfur, virtually all you say in #17 seems to me to be so... tilting at windmills.

Also, minor quibble, but I'd be inclined to read Gourevitch's "We Wish to Inform You That That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda" or D'Allaire's "Shake Hands With the Devil" before letting the US and UN off so lightly ("...there was no action in Rwanda, cause the French were against it, and the US admin, scared by Somalia, didnt push. Annan is no hero, and the UN may be bureaucratic, but that is of little importance in the world...") on Rwanda. Both were MUCH more culpable than that (never minding the French, who were in fact actively on the side of the killers).

At the end of the day either some nation, somewhere, decides to do what's right and sends in the troops, or the killing continues. That's pretty much all there is to it.

"two words - Iraqi Kurdistan.

The guy from Rwanda actually saved the lives of Rwandans. And people here, sitting safely behind their computers, actually think they no more stopping genocide. The chutzpah is overwhelming."

Hello pot? This is kettle. You're black.

You want to stop genocide? Arm the victims; make firing squads into firefights. Have the mercs deliver weapons to the victims and then let god sort them out, as has been the way since man has existed. If you think you can, through clever engineering, tweek or trick these committed minds out of the war theyre engaged in, then good luck to you.

Ask a Rwandan about Mr. Hotel-Sanctuary-Pants. He's a hero in the context of naive Western coping mechanisms that are offended at how brutal the world can be. He was lucky. He didn't "do" anything. That much is evinced by the extent of wanton and indiscrimiante devastation visited on everyone else in Rwanda.

A role for the PMCs? Train the AU troops or lead them or manage their logistics or something. Presently they aren't destroying the offending genocidal maniacs and its a waste to talk about anything else.

"Arm and train the Darfur population and refugees" has a number of problems sassociated with it, but over the long term it's probably the only way to prevent a complete and successful genocide.

Sudan's Arabs have a hatred of black people that is now several million skulls deep, not to mention thousands of slaves. There is no coexistence with people like that. There is only the certainty that armed attacks will be met by armed resistance. It's a lot more sustainbable when that armed resistance is guaranteed to come from a fully armed native population, though interim armed support and training may be necessary.

Part of the problem is that the West is incapable of executing on projects like this, because its whole framework for interventions in total chaos situations is flawed to the point of ridiculousness and guarantees ineffectiveness.

Joe and FastFood,

From a long term perspective, I agree that arming and training the Darfur population is probably the only viable solution. How different would the situation be today if such an idea had been initiated ten years ago, I wonder? Plenty, I'd venture to guess.

Unfortunately, today the people of Darfur are pretty much the definition of "helpless population". If we want to start saving lives now, how can we get around a massive intervention? I mean, does anybody REALLY believe the janjaweed are not acting without the explicit support of the Sudanese government? These weeds need to be taken out at the roots, and the sooner the better.

Youre serious about this, you want national armies, with or without blue helmets. Unfortunately some folks here are gagging at the blue helmets more than they are worried about results.

No one is worried about blue helmets. We just know that the blue helmets are never going to act to prevent genocide, in Darfur or anywhere else.

I know you guys all love the idea of Mercs, but I dont think that is gonna work. How the hell is a private foundation gonna control mercs? And what will you do when their contract is up and the Janjaweed return? hell, how do you know the Sudan govt doesnt buy their loyalties?

The example of Sierra Leone shows that mercenaries can be an effective tool in ending conflict, but can also lead to further chaos if not part of a long-term plan. The question is whether they are better suited to such efforts than UN peacekeeping forces or those of other governments. As Sandline’s former chief, Tim Spicer, said in the year 2000, “It was a darn sight cheaper for the British Government to pay us than the 350 million pounds it is costing us to maintain our troops and the UN operation.” Spicer claims that the company was in fact only paid US$1.5 million for its operations—a sum that did not even meet its operating costs. But one can presume that the mercenaries would have cost considerably less than 350 million pounds, even if they had been paid in full...

..There are some commendable attempts at self-regulation, such as those of Sandline, which claims only to “undertake projects for internationally recognized governments (preferably democratically elected), international institutions such as the United Nations, [and] genuine, internationally recognized and supported liberation movements.” But if governments are to allow mercenaries to intervene in the future, PMCs ought to be held to strict standards of conduct. Responsible companies such as Sandline are not likely to commit egregious ethical errors, but their regulation would make them more appealing to legitimate governments as tools of foreign policy. For this reason, PMCs may even welcome international oversight. Unfortunately, the United Nations’ official condemnation of mercenary activities prevents the establishment of a UN regulatory mechanism.

"I know you guys all love the idea of Mercs..."

I don't love the idea of Mercs. I think its a horribly flawed idea and that most people pressing the idea don't understand it. I think that the idea will never go anywhere. That said...

"...but I dont think that is gonna work."

Oh, it would work, you'd just have to do it right and have sufficient backing to survive the hell you'd unleash.

"How the hell is a private foundation gonna control mercs?"

Essentially, by having the mercs part of the private foundation.

"And what will you do when their contract is up and the Janjaweed return?"

LOL. You don't get it. The janjaweed won't return because they'll be dead. This wouldn't be a show of force. This wouldn't be establishing a presence. This wouldn't be 'peace keeping' or any other Orwellian description. This would be a military action designed to seek out and destroy the enemy in close combat.

"hell, how do you know the Sudan govt doesnt buy their loyalties?"

Because you merc force is selected from people that share your adversion to the Sudanese government, your cultural adversion to genocide, your commitment to rule of law, and your moral values. There are proven methods for going about doing this.

"Youre serious about this, you want national armies, with or without blue helmets."

Aren't you listening? Show me one case of blue helmets getting results?

You want to stop genocide? Arm the victims; make firing squads into firefights. Have the mercs deliver weapons to the victims and then let god sort them out, as has been the way since man has existed. If you think you can, through clever engineering, tweek or trick these committed minds out of the war theyre engaged in, then good luck to you.

There has been a civil war going on in the Sudan for years. The people on the side of the victims were already armed, and they already lost. Sometimes training and more arms can help people improve their fighting tactics, but often it doesn't. We trained the outrageously ineffective Saudi Army..

The same thing is going to happen that always happens in Africa- the world will handwring and debate solutions, until finally one is settled upon... by which time the problem will have 'resolved itself'.

The mercenary suggestion reminds me vividly of an Arrested Development episode where Tobias the (former psychiatrist) has this discussion with his wife:

"Tobias: You know, Lindsay, as a therapist, I have advised a number of couples to explore an open relationship where the couple remains emotionally committed, but free to explore extra-marital encounters.

Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people?

Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but... but it might work for us."

Mary #30

I wasn't aware of that aspect; sounds even more grim. As I understand it, we didn't so much train the Saudis as just sell them stuff they would play with and pass around their royal networks. The Sudanese do have a reason to fight; the Saudis dont.

We revitalized the Northern Alliance, though I gather from your assessment that Sudan is not so easily revitalized.

And so...

Sudan and Somalia become useful examples of what not to let other states become, be they Saudi Arabia or Iraq. That is their place in the world, barring a miracle.

"There has been a civil war going on in the Sudan for years. The people on the side of the victims were already armed, and they already lost. Sometimes training and more arms can help people improve their fighting tactics, but often it doesn't. We trained the outrageously ineffective Saudi Army.."

This is all true.

However, this is an incredibly poor description of SPLA's civil war with the Sudanese government.

The SPLA started the war with little more than rusty bolt-action rifles. The Sudanese government is slaughtering people in the Darfur region instead of the south of the Sudan were the SPLA is strong because by the time of the cease fire agreement, the SPLA had managed to capture several tanks and peices of artillery and the fighting had literally degenerated down to trench warfare. The Kartoum government was at a stalemate, losing more troops than they could replace, and was troubled by talk of US intervention on the side of the 'rebels' so it made nice and sent that janjaweed elsewhere where the inhabitants weren't as well armed.

Nonetheless, the SPLA has always been and remains heavily outgunned against an enemy that has no compulsion against smashing villages by aerial bombardment, burning crops, contaminating wells, and any other act of total war you can imagine. Hense the two million dead black Sudanese. It's mostly been rifles against helicopter gunships, airplanes, Migs, tanks, armored cars supplied by the Russians and the Chinese often at bargain prices because Chinese petro companies have contracts to exploit the oil wealth of the Southern Sudan once it becomes available.

So don't pretend that this was anything like a fair fight or that if the US had have decided back in any time 10 years ago that most of it couldn't have been prevented by just shipping a few cargo loads of small arms, stingers, and ATGM's to the 'rebels'.

And just for the record, I'm under no illusions that the SPLA are a bunch of boy scouts either. Sure, some of them - maybe most of them - are just guys trying to keep thier families alive, the homes intact, and thier women unraped. But the SPLA is an incredibly hetrogenous, confused, mixed up bunch of causes and factions some of which have had thier hands in the slaughtering of civilians just as much as the government.

No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but... but it might work for us."

The point is, it did work, in Sierra Leone. That's why Harvard liberals are promoting the idea. Maybe they think it's a better solution than arming 'rebels' who are only somewhat less brutal, uncontrollable and oppressive than the government and their janjaweed.

"The SPLA started the war with little more than rusty bolt-action rifles."

Hmmm... it appears I should retract or at least qualify this statement. The history of the conflict is even more complicated than I understood it, as most of my reading had begun on 1989 when the genocidal aspect of it really got underway. Garang at least appears to have hung on to something like a small army from the beginning of the conflict back in 1983, and seems to have been getting a steady supply of SA-7's from somewhere.

celebrim: "... steady supply of SA-7's from somewhere."

The CIA began funneling arms and money to the SPLA during the Clinton administration. There may have been Green Beret A-Teams there as well.

#7 celebrim,

There are not enough American troops to fix all the troubles of the world. Not near enough.

Which is why I think integration with Mexico is critical. We could use another 100 million Americans. ASAP.

The current round of "Hate Mexicans" is nothing new in American culture. We used to have "Hate the Irish". Hell we even had "Hate the Jews" which peaked in 1944. The uncovering of Hitler's genocide made Americans take a step back from that one.

In only one respect are we more civilized than the rest of the world. Our hatred is usually translated into political and economic disabilities and not murder.

Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men?

"Which is why I think integration with Mexico is critical. We could use another 100 million Americans. ASAP."

Except that Mexico (and Mexicans) arent interested in being integrated into the United States, they prefer the opposite. Is that still a good option?

"The CIA began funneling arms and money to the SPLA during the Clinton administration. There may have been Green Beret A-Teams there as well."

I have never seen this stated by a creditable source. Every mention of this I've found comes from one 'progressive' sources who I've long associated with opposition to US intervention in the Sudan and apologies for the actions of the Sudanese government. Of course, they would claim that the US is behind the atrocities committed on both sides, and armed by us for vague but certainly evil purposes, but if any group recieves thier qualified support it tends to be the National Islamic Front.

Heck, in trying to find support for this claim, I ran across one wing nut who claimed that the SPLA was involved in some mysterious fashion in helping the CIA carry out the 9/11 attacks.

I'm not saying that what you are saying is terribly unlikely, and I hope that it is true. But as best as I can tell its just a myth perpetrated to bolster claims of American imperial ambitions.

"There are not enough American troops to fix all the troubles of the world. Not near enough."

I never said that there were. In fact, I'm resigned to the fact that nothing will be done about the problems of the Sudan.

"Which is why I think integration with Mexico is critical. We could use another 100 million Americans. ASAP."

A political decree does not an American make. Becoming an American is not that much more difficult than putting on a set of clothes, but you have to really want to become American. Like it or not, 'American' is a distinctive culture with some baseline assumptions about how the world is supposed to work that are so fundamental to who we are that we no more notice them than the air we breath. But you better believe that they make a difference and that you'll notice when they are missing.

I'm extremely skeptical of the American cultures ability to integrate so many people at once, with such a strong cultural tradition of thier own with which they don't really want to part, and in such a climate of internal culture confusion and upheaval. How can we make any new Americans if we ourselves are increasingly unsure of what that means?

I've said this before, but what I fear would happen if we try to integrate such a large hispanic population at once is instead of creating Americans, we'd end up creating millions of people who possessed the culinary skills of the English, the gift for self-government of the Mexicans. It's not a pretty picture.

When the Mexicans don't have to issue warnings to thier citizens not to trust thier own police, when the Mexican government doesn't run on bribes and nepotism, when the Mexican government isn't deliberating flaunting US law in order to provide itself income because thier aren't enough honest managers in Mexico to keep its internal economy going on its own, when the smog from Mexico City isn't visible in San Antonio, then we can talk about joining our two nations together as partners.

This would be a case in point as to why I'd prefer to tightly control the influx of culture from south of the border.

Just so as I'm completely clear, I have no worries about genetic contamination. The can come to America and intermarry and send thier kids to the same schools as mine. I've got absolutely no problem with that. The can bring thier foods and thier clothes and thier architecture and thier art and thier literature, and I've got no problem with that. In fact, I would hope that they do so.

But they have to leave thier 'Mexican' at the door and become Americans. That's non-negotiable to me.

A clear test of which is which is the following.

Say you go into the bar. The bar tender happens to be a friend of yours. Your friend is being a jerk if...

a) He offers you a drink.
b) He doesn't offer you a drink.
c) He insists you pay for a drink.
d) He insists you don't pay for the drink.

Celebrim, I must be bar-blind. I think I only half-get your test. Does that mean I have to apply for citizenship even though I was born here? Or just not make friends with bar owners in Mexico?

:)

Consider the plight of the Canadians. The original idea wqs to create the greatest country ever. It would have the cullinary heritage of the French, the business acumen of the Americans, and the civil service of the British.

Alas, we ended up with the cullinary heritage of the Americans, the business acumen of the British, and the civil service of the French.

These sorts of combinations don't always go the way one thinks they will.

Jokes aside, the issue of Mexico isn't particularly germane here (even if M. simon is right, it changes nothing re: Darfur) so let's all do Yehudit the courtesy of sticking to the subjects of her posts.

Of course if the mercenaries went into Sudan, destroyed the Janjaweed and the Khartum government, and took over the central and regional government themselves then they would:

1. Have a reason to advance the general welfare of all the peoples, rather than using the capital as a base for raids.

2. Stop the inter-regional raids, in the same way that the Romans and the later Normans pacified the English Angles, Saxons, Scots, Picts, and Jutes.

3. Earn the enmity of the whole world for establishing a colony without being Arab Moslems.

celebrim (#7),

I quite disagree that taking care of Sudan is beyond our capabilities right now. Even in their degraded-by-sanctions-and-no-fly state, the Iraqi Army was orders of magnitude more capable than the Sudanese. I don't think we need to bother ourselves with regime change here, we can get by quite nicely with regime decapitation. Just take out whoever's in charge today, and tell their successors "There's plenty more where that came from if we hear the slighest rumor of trouble in Darfur, Nuba Mts, or the south." Sudan seems made to order for an airpower-mostly solution. And if, in the resulting instability, the SPLA decides to make a break for it, more power to them.

And PooBear (#15), I concur with you, mostly, except that in the case of Darfur it's not really necessary to kill lots of combatants, because I don't think there are that many to start with. In leiu of lots of boots on the ground, we could just arm the locals. It's not like the dreaded janjaweed are trained regiments or anything... and celebrim in #29 is basically spot on, except I'm not so sure it would be so tough to survive the "hell you unleashed", because I'm not certain how hellish it would be. I'd be very surprised if the Sudanese Mounted Cavalry didn't quietly dwindle away once it began to encounter serious resistance.

"(BTW i note Yehudit did go to rally in NY, or someone I think was her did, so im not putting her in that category)"

Yes I did. I went to three of them. They were also feel-good exercises, which is why I didn't go to DC.

Whatever Charles Jacobs (iAbolish.org) is involved with, I take seriously, because he has a long track record of doing. The rallies of his at the UN had the most black Africans attending and speaking. I don't think they accomplished more than the others, but they were more how shall I say it "reality-based."

I am very impressed by the energy and idealism of the Jewish organizations which spearhead this effort. I am glad the moonbat quotient is low. But it's mostly 20-something urban white people re-inventing the wheel. "Our parents invented huge protest rallies on the Mall, having huge protest rallies is what we know how to do, let's have another huge protest rally."

I notice from photos there were some Africans in attendance, but one thing I didn't put in my post is that (according to the Wapo article I link) all the speakers were from the Jewish and Christian and social activist groups, and the Darfurians complained, so at the last minute they added two Darfurians to the speaker list.

This is so typical of the narcissism of these efforts. How many Iraqis spoke at any of the world-wide antiwar rallies of 2003? I didn't hear of any. Because it wasn't about the Iraqis, it was about pacifism and anti-Americanism and the romance of revolutionary terrorism.

At least Charles Jacobs rallies feature the actual victims front and center, with utmost respect for them. And neither he nor they are squeamish about naming Arab Islamism as the oppressive force behind the killings. The Muslim world is starting to do more self-examination and I think it's useful to harness that effort. All Muslims are supposed to support and help all other Muslims. More and more Muslims are becoming uneasy about the Wahabi-based Islamists, and more are willing to repudiate terrorism.

One of the biggest flaws of the "protest rally" folks is the reluctance to have high expectations for anyone but their own government. I think the Jewish commands to pursue justice and to rebuke your neighbor contradict this. Your neighbor is everyone and injustice is everywhere. Rebuke where it will do the most good, don't just preach to the choir.

Yes, the speakers mentioned the other actors in this crisis, and as I said in my post, I think specifically embarrassing those others is the way to go. It worked for the Soviet Jewry movement.