The fact is, that Dictators usually do not get swept out of power by an uprising from the masses - unless they actually were puppets who lost their masters. They tend to stick around despite sanctions or travel restrictions, or the hand wringing of the world community. Franco died in power, of old age, and so (most likely) will Castro. Lets look at those who have committed genocide in the 20th Century: Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Hitler (who by the way, probably wouldn't have been judged an immediate threat to America either), were forced from power only by foreign troops.
Why do you care about the Sudan? How is the genocide in the Sudan any worse or different than the genocides committed by Saddam? The UN Security Council's stand on the Sudan, is no different than Iraq. This means that any action in the Sudan, would encounter opposition from the Russians, Chinese and French. Saddam was responsible for the deaths of millions of people (maybe 3 million).
As far as Iran goes, the country is probably too large for the United States to occupy - larger land mass and three times the population of Iraq.
re:" The problem of dealing with Saddam was a subset of a larger problem: the need to develop a new global “rule set”, to use the Barnett expression, capable of confronting the linked problems of dictatorships, failed states, and terrorism. We backed away from that challenge – which would, like most important tasks, have been difficult – and based our moves on short term domestic political considerations.
We rushed when there was no imperative need for immediate action, and no we are dithering in the Sudan, where there is real need of immediate action, and in Iran, where the stakes are higher than they ever were in Iraq." |
