The deadly failure of multilateralism in Darfur

Ralph Peters:

A HALF-million dead in Darfur; 2.5 million refugees - not counting the corpses lost in the sands or terrified survivors in hiding. Surely, the world will act?

No. The world talks. While the militias kill - and years pass. The United Nations looks away - its signature gesture when human rights are violated.

Welcome to the triumph of global hypocrisy.

Europe wrings its hands - as Europe always does - but declines an invitation to the dance. After all, "responsible" governments can't play fast and loose with another state's sovereignty. No dictator or president-for-life would be able to get a decent night's sleep.

So Sudan's Islamo-fascists continue to kill with impunity.

Our own left mourns theatrically for Darfur's dead - but no one has formed a new Lincoln Brigade to take on Sudan's Muslims fanatics. And the uncomfortable fact that Arab Muslims are slaughtering black Muslims goes ignored. It doesn't fit the left's comfortable worldview.

Oh, yes: Those on the left demanding that we "bring the troops home" from Iraq would be delighted to send American troops to rescue Khartoum's victims. But our military is occupied with other cases of fanaticism and genocide in the Muslim world this holiday season.

Isn't it curious that, when it comes to liberation, Iraq didn't count? For the endlessly hypocritical left, there's one magic difference between the half-million dead of Darfur and the 1.5 million people killed by Saddam in his internal massacres and neighborhood wars: Bush.

...

The hypocrisy of the left has few boundaries. If the US did intervene they would quickly disown the mission when it required making war with the perps. The fundamental problem with the "anti war" left is that they are really not anti war. They are just against the US half of any war. That is the way they have been since Vietnam. They are not true pacifist. When have you ever seen them protest the acts of our enemies in a war. When have you heard them decry the war crimes of the enemy in Iraq. Our enemy's entire military strategy is wrapped in war crimes and violations of the Geneva Conventions and the anti war left is more likely to blame the US for forcing them to commit those crimes. That is how their earned their title of anti war pukes at this blog.

David Warren commenting on the blame Bush crowd says:

I was rewriting history, while walking along some cold lakeshore the other day. My thought was: if Churchill had only come to power in 1937, Chamberlain would have been installed to replace him in 1940.

Had Churchill been in power, and refused to sign Munich, he would have been blamed for the outbreak of war.

I can just hear the prattle in an English pub, circa 1950. "He pushed Hitler to it! Had it not been for Churchill, Hitler would have been satisfied with the Sudetenland, and England would never have had to surrender. Everything was Churchill's fault!"

Today, everything is Bush's fault.

...

And such media as CNN (perhaps unfairly singled out), persist in airing a worldview tantamount to blaming the police for the existence of crime. For the consistent argument of the talking heads amounts to, "We may need more troops on the ground in the short term, but the long-term answer is to get out." Translation: "We may need more cops in the short term, to deal with the mess they've already stirred up, but the long-term solution can only be to let the criminals get on with it."

...

That is the insanity of the left today. Blame Bush for fighting back. Never blame the enemy. Part of the arrogance is the belief that we control the acts of the enemy and if we just act a certain way we can keep him from being the brutal religious nut that he is. The fact is that we are fighting religious bigots who want to cut the throats of the CNN staff too, after they finish their jobs as useful idiots.