Sacrificing Darfur to fight terror?

The Jordan Times published an article titled "As Darfur bleeds, Sudan helps US fight terror." Isn't it ironic that a country can "fight terror" yet perpetrate it at the same time? The basic premise of the article is that the United States needs Sudan to help track Al Qaeda in East Africa and that is why the Bush administration has been soft on Darfur. Colin Thomas-Jensen, an analyst with the International Crisis Group, says that the US is conflicted over reacting to Darfur and using intelligence from Sudan. "The overriding strategic objective of the US in the Horn of Africa is fighting terrorism and so these two issues are now clashing."

The article goes on to talk about Osama bin Laden's role in US policy toward Sudan. He lived in Sudan in the mid-1990s and Sudan divulges information on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to the US. "To placate its critics, Sudan has suggested that Darfur rebels are of the same ilk as Al Qaeda and is seeking to maximise the benefits from its decision to expel Ben Laden and align itself with Washington." The article ends with a quote from Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of Al Quds Al Arabi newspaper in London:

If there's a foreign intervention and if there's a Sudanese party who doesn't like this foreign intervention, this will open a space for Al Qaeda to come and fill. So they are waiting for these forces to come, exactly the way they were waiting for the American forces to go to Iraq, to fight them.

With this possibility in mind, what do we do? Have we been mistaken about what is needed in Darfur or are we right on track? Is the possibility of terrorist activity in Darfur a real threat? And how valuable is Sudan's intelligence? And how can we justify allowing genocide to continue in order to fight terrorism?