Hillary calls for the redeployment of US troops to Darfur
Yes, the situation in Darfur is horrible. There exists no human crisis on our planet equalling the magnitude of the civil war in Sudan, but do we need another military conflict, when America's solution to a failing campaign in Iraq is sending another 21,000 soldiers in to be maimed or killed? (OH WAIT, that's right Bush lied about that number, I meant 48,000.)
It is great that Clinton wants to make Darfur a campaign issue. I am all about getting the word out that the world needs to intervene in Sudan and stop the violence, genocide and atrocities in the region. I applaud her bringing the issue to the forefront. The problem with Hillary, like so many other hopefuls, is that she has no diplomatic experience and only sees military intervention as a solution to conflict.
About a month ago Bill Richardson went to Sudan. He asked for an audience with President Al Bashir, and then went to the militia camps. He was able to broker a 60 day cease fire agreement after four days of talks. No one else could get a meeting with Al Bashir, not Jesse Jackson, not Barak Obama. Both men were turned away. Richardson is able to go into places no one else can and seek out peaceful resolutions.
">Richardson is seen here in a refugee camp in SudanAnd here, negotiating for peace...
It bothers me to no end how Darfur has just been a source of lip service for politicians on both sides of the spectrum. Richardson does deserve kudos for his efforts. How can anyone (Hillary are you listening?) justify not intervening into this humanitarian massacre?
ReplyDelete