It's Great In Theory

The rebel troops in Darfur have finally agreed to meet with Sudanese government officials. This is mostly probably due to the actual threat of UN and AU troops being allowed into the area. But will this end the problem? It's not like militias are known to keep their word. While I believe that it is about time troops were allowed in, it might only rectify the problem for a short time. We should not lose our focus on this issue because it is far from over. We need to keep an eye on Darfur for years to come. It is a very real possibility that the killing could start again once the UN and AU troops have pulled out. This is not the time to lose momentum. So, let's not.

Getting Comfy With Genocide

Read this immediately.

Ron Rosenbaum writes that we should be asking substantive questions of our presidential candidates:

"What would you do if you saw another Rwanda developing? In other words, a genocide that has little to do with previous U.S. intervention and is not our fault in any direct way, but one we could prevent - at a cost: U.S. troops, U.S. lives. President Clinton has apologized for his failure to intervene in Rwanda. Do you agree that the United States should commit itself to preventing genocide anywhere it threatens to occur?"

My follow-up question: when asking questions like the one above, are we simplifying genocide prevention by only investigating military options? What about long term policy? Or despite the post-genocide blame and restrospective declarations, are we ignoring the fact that U.S. military action is necessary to stop genocide?