You're probably not used to seeing cites from Antiwar.com here on Winds of Change, but lately they've had a couple of intelligent articles. On July 31, 2004, Gordon Prather said:
"The election will, however, decide which country is next to have its "regime changed."
If Kerry is elected, it'll be Sudan. If Bush is reelected, it'll be Iran."
Discuss.
It goes without saying that I don't agree with everything in Prather's Antiwar.com article, but it's worth a read for its overview of the developing outlines... and the role of the Chinese in both crises. The Chinese role in Sudan is described in even more detail via this list of talking points over at Sudan: Passion of the Present.
China will abstain on Sudan, veto Iran, although in the latter case it won't come to that.
Why all the sudden interest in Sudan?
Where have the UN and all the concerned
voices been over the last decade while
almost 3 million Pagans and Christians
were being slaughtered in the South?
Conflict in Darfur: can the crisis be abated?
Western Sudan is being torn apart by a year-long conflict that has escalated from tribal fighting to become an international humanitarian disaster.
Over one million people are already displaced and it is estimated that up to 30,000 have been killed. Now the whole area is facing a man-made famine that could threaten the lives of thousands more.
That is TWO orders of magnitude LESS than the previous genocide that everyone seems to continue to be silent about.
Perhaps one day the Leftist Bush-bashers will be able to watch, and see that they are also targetted by Islamicism.
In the other hand, I can't imagine how that evil (and naive) Leftism can help the West to decide anything realistic about Iran or Sudan, as rogue regimes taking part of the same global jihad as they are.
My opinion: both Iran than Sudan should be confronted. But not by means of the finished UN (that sadly has become a tool of worldwide wickedness), but by the Alliance of Western and Democratic Societies, as recently proposed by Dr. Raphael Israeli:
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3
I'm not sure what there is to discuss, really. If Bush is re-elected, he'll continue to do what he's always done - address the most pressing issue head on. If Iran continues down it's current path (nukes) then clearly that issue outweighs the Sudan.
If Kerry wins he'll probably give lip service to both and do nothing about either. Of the two, symbolic action against Sudan (sanctions) seems far more likely than any military involvement.
Kerry's real goal (as alluded to in his acceptance speech) is to get our "allies to help", allowing us to get the heck out of the Middle East, and remove our military from conflict whereever possible.
He didn't say it in those terms, exactly, but that's the gist of it.
I agree with the post. The left tends to support military action in inverse proportion to the national interest at stake. Iran is far more important to America's interests than is Sudan. I hate to see genocide, and my heart goes out to the poor people suffering in Darfur. The Arab militias making them suffer are clearly bastards. But Sudanese Arab militias aren't going to be blowing up American cities any time soon. Iranian nukes given to Hezbollah on the QT just might. So naturally, the left would favor military action in Sudan and oppose it in Iran. God help us if Kerry wins.
er, Dan & Joel - did the north-south war in Sudan just end on its own?
Just wondering.
WE've been covering Sudan since 2002 here at Winds of Change. Some of the early posts may provide some insight into the North-South war. This has also been a feature of our regional reports, though many of those have not been added to the new category yet.
I think the article is wrong in that, if Bush wins a second term, both the Sudan and Iran will be in his targets for regime change.
With regards the Sudan, Bush has already acted quite pro-actively in bringing the war in the south of that country to an end. There is even to be a referendum in the next few years for independence. Acting in the Darfur Region is likely to have international support and require fewer US soldiers than might otherwise be the case. Unless events there take a dramatic turn to the south, only a few thousand troops will be necessary.
As for Iran, I do not think an invasion at all likely except under the most dire of circumstances. I will qualify that with this, incursions, reprisals and other military activity is likely and, if reelected, Bush does not have to worry about career fall-out from a decision to invade. I think Bush is going to use covert operations, massively support the independence movement and bring international pressure to bear to cause an implosion.
If Kerry is elected, i find it unlikely that any action will be taken against Iran. There will be four years of talks, at the end of which, Iran will have nuclear weapons and vastly increase it influence over Iraq (which, as I read it, the Iranians have no intention allowing to fall into complete chaos. They want an ever burning fire in Iraq to keep the americans occupied and bleed us to death with a thousand pinpricks.)The Iraq experiment in democracy will also be abandoned in favor of stability and international support. By this I do not mean a wholesale retreat from the region, but rather of wholesale internationalizing of the situation and a replication of the nightmare the UN, EU and NATO have made of the former Yugoslavia (the nightmare now is of course not as bad as the nightmare of old, never-the-less one would think they could do better).
As for the Sudan. I think Kerry will view it as an easy target for propping up his image as both humanitarian and a tough President. It will likely Somaliate.
punk boy
It used to be amusing to discover clichés like “imperialist lackeys” and “capitalist roaders” sprinkled through the text of the People’s Daily of Mao’s time. So people actually write like that and expect to be taken seriously! The Prather piece cited in this post is hardly better, with its straight-faced account of the differences between how the looney Left and the neo-crazies view the substitution of U.S. sycophantic regimes for existing "criminal" regimes (sneer quotes in original).
Yah. Whatever.
Re. Iran, without even greater provocations by the mullahs, we are constrained by:
1. The imminent success of the Iranian A-bomb program
2. The absence of useful military options
3. The overstretch of the US military
4. The lack of any support for confrontational policies (from Europe, NATO, Arab or Islamic countries, the UN)
5. The fairly even split in the American body politic absent any confrontation with Iran
We are left with Ledeen’s “faster, please” motto, a greater or lesser level of moral and covert support to the anti-mullah student groups, and a somewhat- to completely- toothless set of economic sanctions. What actual actions could a US Administration take in the near future? What evidence suggests that Kerry would have the stomach for anything more than pious sloganeering?
In the Sudan, we face a militarily weak and geographically-isolated country with an Islamofascist, racist, genocidal government. The longstanding ties of the Sudanese government to al Qaeda are both philosophical and “operational” (e.g. Google 'Sudan al Qaeda' )
Arrayed against intervention are:
Points 3, 4, and 5 from above, and
6. The previously-cited Chinese interests in Sudan
7. The alignment of French economic interests with the Khartoum government
The post-9/11-carry-a-strong-stick Bush has shown no interest in taking on Sudan. The American and Euro left fantasizes that Oxfam-delivered sacks of maize are effective counters to Janjaweed ethnic cleansing and government-sponsored rape raids.
Regarding this nightmare and potential go-it-alone Quagmire, where is the evidence that Kerry would have the stomach for anything other than hand-wringing? Prather’s article supplies none.
eh, the French aren't so bad.
praktike,
A certain level of skepticism concerning such interventions may be justified. A quote:
A unilateral French operation into the Sudan would seem to be as good an excuse as any to get out those "No Blood For Oil" banners. Or is it only American politics that are influenced by naked self-interest.
hmmm. well, viva le mercantilism.
Is there an African country without a French military presence?
A U.S. invasion of Iran under Bush, or Sudan under Kerry, seems unlikely to say the least.
I get the impression Blair is keen on sending troops to Sudan, but won't because of Iraq and the probable election next year.
I have been reading Winds of War for about a year now. Love the site.
Regarding Sudan, it is important to remember that Sudan is actually 2 completely different countries : (1) the arid, Islamic, Arab north, and (2) the sub-tropical, Animist/Christian, Black south. Sudan is one of the largest and longest countries in Africa stretching from the deserts of the Sahara to the jungles of Central Africa. Hence, you have 2 completely different cultures and religions who have NEVER gotten along. The Arab north has always been in control - politically - of the country and has always exerted violent control over the south. The south has been fighting an un-official civil war against the government for years. It should be noted that the CIA/US Government has been allegedly providing covert assistance to the south for years - in training, funds, and weapons.
Personally I think we are stretched far too thin to handle any more conflicts in the world at this time. Our priority should be WOT, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I just don't see how we could possibly cover Sudan without full military support and troops from the rest of the world. Unfortunately, I don't see the rest of the world stepping in any time soon.
With Bush, I think either way (Iran or Sudan) his hands are tied. He will need international support in both cases. As for Sudan, I could see him expanding covert assistance to the south and possible funding, similar to what his daddy did in Afghanistan. I don't support this option, I just think it is something he can do without committing large numbers of troops or waiting for International support.
As for Iran, I really have no idea. We have no embassy, no resources on the ground, no real relationship with any anti-government groups that I am aware of. For sure it will BUsh's priority before Sudan. The best pressure Bush could apply to Iran is further stabilization of Iraq and improved military security there. A strong, stable, democratic Iraq, with some Western/American leanings, is the biggest threat to Iran above all else.
I agree that Kerry would take care of Sudan first and make it a priority to get all our "allies" onboard for it. But I don't think he has the guts to stick it out. At the first sign of any trouble, we will pull out, just like Somalia.
AD,
>I agree that Kerry would take care of Sudan first and make it a priority to get all our "allies" onboard for it.
I'm not trying to be obtuse here--really--but this is the kind of sentence that I understand less after reading it.
"Would take care of Sudan" means what, in exact terms?
--"Urgent hearings in the Security Council, with the Chinese and French finally permitting passage of a toothless resolution"?
--"80-pound bags of maize and plastic sheeting shipped to the camps at the Chad/Sudan border"?
--"Additional pinstriped delegations to Khartoum accepting statements from Qutbist government officials"?
OK, I can believe any of those outcomes, but how exactly does that correspond to "taking care of" anything important, from the points of view of the murder victims, rape victims, D.P.s, and survivors?
The anti-US Left sees the tawdry evidence of American self-interest contaminating almost everything that Bush does. Somehow--magically--such considerations don't come into play when considering America's betters. France and China, in this example, aren't blocking intervention in Sudan for mercenary considerations, but for other, higher reasons. Like their government's hatred of Bush. Ah--so if the US electorate could only rid itself of that pariah, then the International Community would be able to act nobly regarding Sudan, because...
...because....
As I said, I understand the meaning of that first sentence less upon reflection.
Kerry will not do anything effective about Sudan because doing so would alienate the government of France, and one of Kerry's main points - indeed, one might say his central point - in seeking election is that Bush, by alienating France, somehow has made fighting the war more difficult. He can't very well turn around and ignore French objections, going in without UNSC sanction, after this election. Clinton could do it in Kosovo, because he wasn't elected on a platform of UN control and French amity; Kerry, if elected, won't be in that position.
Our priority should be WOT, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Hmmm. Without trying to specify a priority listing, I do note that an awful lot of jihadis seem to be coming into Iraq from Sudan. And there's also the business about an alleged agreement with bin Laden concerning chem weapons development back in the late 90s. Additionally, judging by their rhetoric, the Sudanese government is jihadist in ideology. I don't think you can rule Sudan out of the wider war. On the contrary.
jaed,
>the business about an alleged agreement with bin Laden concerning chem weapons development back in the late 90s.
Richard Clarke wrote a book to proclaim himself an anti-terror legend, and much of Kerry's coalition seems to agree. One of Clinton's major actions, at the urging of Clarke, was the August 1998 cruise missile attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant near Khartoum. In this typically acerbic piece, Hitchens quotes Clarke telling the press that he was "sure" that "intelligence existed linking bin Laden to Al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."
As Dan Darling has pointed out numerous times here at WoC and on his own blog, Clarke has not backed away from his 1998 position. Such a re-assesment would seem to require a full apology at the least ("I had our Armed Forces blow up an aspirin plant that was actually...an aspirin plant").
The plausible possibilities are:
(1) that Clarke was right, and Al Shifa was an instance of Al Qaeda, the Sudanese government, and Iraqi Ba'athists in cahoots. But these connections have become inconvenient for Clarke in his new (unclear) role supporting the Kerry campaign, and are best left undiscussed.
(2) that Clarke knows he was wrong in 1998, but he's gambling that the story's inconsistencies will have vanished down the memory hole before anyone notices, and calls him to account.
Either possibility would seem to present problems for President Kerry's stance towards Sudan, given the major role to be played by longtime Clarke intimate Rand Beers.