Centerfield

I don't think it reflects so poorly on us that we recognize the finite nature of our resources. Sure, if we hadn't invaded Iraq we might be in a better position to help in Sudan, but I don't think that's any blow at all to the relaitive wisdom of invading Iraq. The primary rationale was always national security.

My sense was never that humanitarian concerns were a "reason" we invaded, but rather that they were corollary benefits. And I don't think the humanitarian rational was marketed as a reason, only as a possible benefit. This has been repeatedly miscast, IMO.

I think you can make a strong argument that our primary reason for intervening is always national security, and that humanitarian reasons come second. I'm a little surprised that you seem to suggest otherwise here Rick, since you've repeatedly taken the position that we should lower our expectations in Iraq to hope only for some form of stability that provides national security.

Also, I wouldn't give up yet on the idea that we'll have some additional involvement in Sudan going forward, even if it's only token humantarian aid and logisitics support.

As far as muslim hate goes, we'd be making a big mistake if that were viewed as a good reason to not get involved. if we want to foster moderate islam, we need to expose the brutal ugly excesses of the more zealous forms.

The reason most people supported the invasion of Iraq was the national security arguments, especially but not limited to WMD

The humanitarian argument was always secondary, but it has come more to the fore as the national security argument has become muddied. I've never found it convincing in Iraq, because it wasn't an immediate crisis. But we'll look like hypocrites if we keep talking about it in Iraq, but ignore it in Sudan.

I agree that we shouldn't ignore what's going on in sudan, and I don't expect us to do nothing.

Given that we were crucified for unilateral actions, why should we be expected to lead here? This is a good opportunity for Bush, if he were savvy, to go for a real checkmate move. Imagine a speech before the UN where he said that the U.S unreservedly condemns the actions of the Sudanese government. Additionally, it respects the fact that many UN members were displeased with US actions in Iraq that these other members felt were precipitious and unilateral. So in the case of the Sudan, twith respect to our allies, the US stands ready and willing to help, and awaits only the ledership of its French, German, Russian, and Chinese allies in trying to avert further humanitarian catastrophe.

After all, isn't there some absurdity in the same people who called the US precipitous and unilateral now calling for the US to respond and save the day?

The administration offered a variety of reasons for doing it, including the altruistic ones (e.g., freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator). WMD was always the primary rationale.

I did notice, however, that a lot of war supporters relied heavily on Saddam's brutality and expressed a level of moral indignation toward those who didn't want the war. There was some biting rhetoric -- calling people "pro-Saddam", and, I recall, when those prisons that had children in them were liberated, a lot of pro-war folks expressed a kind of moral contempt that anyone would oppose such a thing.

Will, I agree that the partisan rhetoric of supporters definitely DID go as you describe. They engaged in "all good outcomes were original reasons" type of thinking. Very tiresome weak-sense grab bag ciritical thinking.

I think it's worth making some distinction between the official policy statements of the President and the more heated rhetoric of his supporters. My impression in Bush's statements was that the ones I read or listened to were always carefully worded to make it clear that security was the primary concern, and that the humanitarian aspects were benefits, but not the actual reason for going in. In other words, no security threat, no invasion, in this case.

Because this is in essence the policy that we've usually tried to follow historically, that the extent of our involvement in foreign conflicts would be first determined by the threat to our security. I's a viewpoint I feel is pragmatic(for better _and_ for worse), and dictated by recognition of our resources as finite, despite our relatively great power as a nation.

I absolutely want to distance myself from defending the entirety of the statements of the pro-war folks. I'm just saying that I thought Bush was pretty clear. His blinder supporters didn't always help him achieve clarity regarding stated rationales.

Regarding unilateralism, the Bush doctrine surely suggests that national security is the rationale for unilateral premptive action. So in the case of Sudan, perhaps it's an opportunity to teach, by showing our willingness to act in a cooperative multilateral fashion when the primary concern is not security but compassion.

I guess I would look at it this way.

The administration always had the security issue out front -- the WMD threat.

But the also had a neo-Wilsonian, altruistic vision of spreading democratic values and bringing freedom to the Iraqi's. The president's last press conference before the war leaned heavily on that altruistic vision.

Of course, even the Wilsonian argument has an underlying security rationale -- the claim that bringing democracy to Iraq will promote a transformation of the region, and ultimately lessen terrorism. But it's a kind of combined humanitarian/security argument, and Bush himself has often leaned pretty heavily on the visionary/humanitarian piece of it.

As dead-on as Rick's point is about our inaction in Sudan making something of a mockery of the humanitarian claim for action in Iraq, I think the larger point that needs to be added is that typically, actions taken to prevent genocide in situations such as this require so minimal resources, it is inexcusable to not do so. I mean good greif ... if it takes 1,000 troops to stave off murderers in Suday, then what reason is there for not doing so? Yes, we've got well over 100,000 troops in Iraq, but I'm pretty sure we can find 1,000 troops still in the States on any given day.

I do think that Iraq must be considered when thinking about our role in the Sudan crisis. I don't think we should lead in this crisis simply because we don't want to leave the impression that we're invading yet another muslim country. I do think we've got the resources and the willingness to help, but it's best to not lead in every conflict, and especially in this one. We continue to provide troops to other countries and conflicts when needed while we've been in Iraq, included Haiti during the presidential crisis and the Dominican Republic to help flood victims.

That all being said, I can't look back at Rwanda and think we did the right thing by sitting on the sidelines waiting for the UN to do something.

Good point, Greg. I wonder roughly what size of force we'd be looking at.

I'd have to dig up the exact references Samantha Power made as to what could have held off the butchers in Rwanda, but the range that pops into mind is in the 1-2,000 area.

yeah I agree that it's a good point that situations like this have often been shut down with minimal intervention. But I think it's undeniable that since our attempts at global leadership have so recently been looked askance, the merits of our taking the lead in this are questionable.

Bluntly, why is it that the Sudan crisis is brought up in the context of criticism of our foreign policy, instead of simply being deplored on its own, and coupled with a call for ALL world governments with pretensions of humanitarian ideals to come together to do something about it? It's such simplemindedness in demanding absolute policy consistency regardless of differing circumstances that makes it so easy for partisans to engage in the very mockery that they are claiming is being made.

Nothing i've seen or heard suggests that our government is unconcerned, or that we're happy to be uninvolved. Those who blithely expect the US to play the leadership role in this case should look closer at the dynamic in which they are calling upon the US to spread its forces even thinner, in the process likely inviting further charges of imperialism and unilateralism. For those who hoped such charges might chasten the US into being much more deliberate and slower to act in times of foreign crisis, well guess what? Maybe you're reaping what you've sown.

So if you REALLY want to connect the Iraq policy to our current lack of a response in Sudan, chew on that.

This is such a dilemma. I agree with the points of bk and Will here. Furthermore, it's another situation where the French have vested interests (oil development contracts) with the perps - no action will arise from the UN. If the U.S. or U.K. does not take the initiative, thousands more will be killed. As mentioned in the post, U.S. forces are already committed (Though I would not charecterize this deployment as unwise.)(Are there any objective figures available as to how stressed/overextended U.S forces are at this time? ) I don't see how GWB can commit our forces further and be reelected, but he will be slammed whichever course he takes.
Arm chair estimates of troop levels to police such a huge area are specious.