Hi Michael. The rules are the same everywhere, it's only the facts that change.
I don't have any objection to participating in a true multinational effort to stop wanton, wholesale killing. The test, as always is whether such a mission is worth killing and dying to accomplish, whether the mission is doable and whether there is any other less lethal way of accomplishing the mission. If the answers are yes, yes, and no, then there are situations where lethal force is necessary and then the task is to use such force minimally, efficiently and with effect.
In Kosovo we acted from the air, we separated warring factions that were committing grave atrocities and the situation was salvageable.
Darfur is difficult. Any short term efforts may create short term benefits that are eaten up by cultural, economic, educational, religious and and climate factors. Once committed where do you "end" your involvement?
So the question is whether we can act as part of a real international effort, whether a mission can be narrowly conceived that has a good possibility of stopping the killing with a clear end point and whether some kind of longer term stability can result. I haven't seen anything yet to indicate that such a mission is possible. Ed |
